Add Reply
Add Comment As A Guest
Close Topic OptionsMeredith Kercher - Page 6 of 8
QUOTE (Vincenzo)Other than you just disagreeing - Page 6 - Politics, Business, Civil, History - Posted: 24th Jun, 2011 - 10:25pm
Posts: 57 - Views: 8759
Killed because she did not want to participate in a violent orgy - Amanda Knox convicted
Post Date: 18th Jun, 2011 - 7:05am / Post ID: #
Meredith Kercher - Page 6
QUOTE (LDS_forever)possible that Meredith took part of these orgies in the past but she refused this one time for some reason?
Actually, the evidence in the case points to Rudy Guede breaking in through the window (by himself) and then committing the crime on his own.
QUOTE (LDS_forever)There is so far circumstantial evidence AND a confession that links her to the murders.
That circumstantial evidence doesn't actually exist however. The Italian government just made it up.
I wouldn't call it a confession. She states that she was in the next room while someone else did the crime.
However, the statement was the result of the Italian police hitting her in the head until she agreed to say it. Hardly voluntary.
QUOTE (LDS_forever) there was blood of both Amanda and Meredith in the bathroom possibly Amanda trying to wash the body) but there is DNA evidence against the boyfriend (in the bra of the victim).
There was no blood from Amanda found anywhere in the building. Amanda's DNA was in the bathroom, but it was her own bathroom.
The bra clasp that supposedly had Raffaele's DNA was heavily contaminated. They didn't collect it until more than a month later, and over that intervening time, their videos of the room show it being left on the floor, being shuffled to different parts of the room, and getting dirtier and dirtier over time. It was white and clean when they started. When they finally collected it, it was black with grime.
When they finally did test it, the test showed DNA from a number of individuals. Ignoring the fact of the contamination for a minute, why is it incriminating for Raffaele's DNA to allegedly be there, but other people's DNA on it is not incriminating?
And in any case, Raffaele's DNA was not there. The supposed DNA test just mixed and matched DNA from all the profiles on the clasp to make it look like Raffaele's DNA was there.
QUOTE (LDS_forever)The fact that Amanda repeatedly said she was with the boyfriend at the time of the murder puts her in a very odd position. She is clearly lying
No, that was the truth. She and Raffaele spent the night at his place.
QUOTE (LDS_forever)yes, she has many versions of what happened that night
Not quite. There were many versions that came out of her mouth during the interrogation where the Italian police were striking her in the head whenever she said anything they didn't want her to say.
However, aside from that interrogation, she has had only one version (which is that she and Raffaele spent the night together at his place).
QUOTE (LDS_forever)She tries to portrait herself as this "innocent young girl" when in fact she has been living quite a wild life in Italy.
There is no evidence that she is any more wild than any other kid her age.
QUOTE (LDS_forever)For me the most clear evidence against this woman is the kitchen knife that has been found with Knox's DNA near the handle and the victim's near the tip. Too obvious.
The knife showed no sign of having been used in a crime. It was too large to have made any of Meredith's wounds. It was also too large to match the bloody outline left when the killer set the knife down briefly.
The alleged DNA from Meredith on the knife was a result of turning the DNA machine sensitivity up so high that it put out nothing but static, then assuming that any noise spike that was in the right spot for Meredith's profile was valid, and any noise spike that was not in the right spot was just a noise spike.
QUOTE (LDS_forever)Then are we forgetting the day after the murder she and her boyfriend were buying sexing lingerie and talking and laughing about having wild sex?
The day after the murder, Amanda was locked out of her apartment with no clothes, and needed to buy new clothes. She bought underwear, not lingerie, and there is no evidence that she was talking or laughing about having wild sex.
Although being freshly in love with Raffaele, it would not be unreasonable or incriminating for her to talk about sex.
QUOTE (LDS_forever)As a matter of fact his version of the story states that he met Meredith, went to her apartment, they were having s-xual relations when he went to the bathroom because of a stomach ache, he was in the bathroom with his iPod, and when he left the bathroom he found a man with a knife with whom he scuffled. He has also indicated that the man resembled Sollecito, and that Knox was also present.
Rudy Guede does say that. But...
Rudy Guede had a history of conducting breakins that include at least one breakin that is an exact match of the breakin that occurred here.
Rudy Guede had a history of carrying a big knife with him when he breaks into places.
Rudy Guede was the only person who left any evidence of having been involved with the crime (and he left a lot of it).
He has more than one version of his story for that matter. In a latter version, he claims that Amanda and Meredith were fighting over Meredith's stolen rent money. But it was Guede's DNA that was on the purse that the money was stolen from, not Amanda's.
QUOTE (LDS_forever)The boyfriend insist he was not there the night of the murder and they both blame each other.
Amanda and Raffaele don't blame each other.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)Well, her bloody footprints of a room she claimed not to have been in coupled with her multiple changing stories of where she was and what she did know put her in a bad light.
The supposed bloody footprints had no blood, and have never been shown to be related to the crime.
Nor have they ever been shown to be from Amanda.
The only time she changed her story was during the interrogation when the Italian police were hitting her in the head.
QUOTE (Krusten)Luciano Aviello is saying that his brother commited the murder of Meredith Kercher and he can prove it.
He is supposed to be testifying in the appeal today, for what it's worth. Though the evidence is pretty clear that Rudy Guede is the lone killer.
Sponsored Links:
Kercher Meredith
Oralloy, I haven't followed this case for a while so I will have to collect some information to dispute some of your claims, having said that I would like to know why do you think Amanda is saying the truth when she states that the police hit her on the head? And yes Amanda and her boyfriend were blaming each other at first, it was all over the media.
If what you said is true, and there is really no evidence then how come she and the boyfriend has been in charged and found guilty? We also know there were MORE than one attacker and that the victim KNEW them. We may speculate she wasn't the one that killed her but I think there was enough evidence presented to link her participation in this horrible crime.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 1089 
100%
Meredith Kercher History & Civil Business Politics
I need to see way more proof to what you are saying because she would have looked like a pinata with as many times as she was supposedly hit in the head by Italian Police to get her story honed. I do know what all of the evidence that you are saying is false is what got her convicted, so it does hold weight even if you don't particularly like it.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 863 86.3%
Post Date: 21st Jun, 2011 - 5:27pm / Post ID: #
Page 6 Kercher Meredith
QUOTE (LDS_forever)having said that I would like to know why do you think Amanda is saying the truth when she states that the police hit her on the head?
First, Amanda issued an immediate written retraction saying that she didn't know what she said to be true, and had been pressured into saying it. Also, aside from this one interrogation, her story has been consistent and in agreement with the evidence.
Second, the Italian Police steadfastly refuse to let anyone hear the recording of the interrogation.
QUOTE (LDS_forever)And yes Amanda and her boyfriend were blaming each other at first, it was all over the media.
Is there any recording of either of them saying such things? Many many untrue things were reported in the media.
QUOTE (LDS_forever)If what you said is true, and there is really no evidence then how come she and the boyfriend has been in charged and found guilty?
Because the judges chose to convict them. There is no way the behavior of the judges could be anything other than a deliberate attempt to convict innocent people.
The trial judge went out of his way to block all attempts by the defense to have clearly fraudulent evidence examined by neutral experts.
And one of the pre-trial judges blocked the defense from trying to restore Amanda's data after the Italian Police erased all the defendants' hard drives.
QUOTE (LDS_forever)We also know there were MORE than one attacker and that the victim KNEW them.
Guede is the only one who left any evidence of having been involved in the murder. And in all his past history of breaking into places, he always acted alone. He never had a partner.
Meredith did meet Guede once in a group of people, but she didn't actually know him. It's unlikely she even recognized him when he broke in. She only traced the letters AF before she died. If she'd known his actual name those two letters would be RU or GU or RG.
QUOTE (LDS_forever)We may speculate she wasn't the one that killed her but I think there was enough evidence presented to link her participation in this horrible crime.
That wasn't real evidence though. Every bit of it can be easily shown to be fake.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)I need to see way more proof to what you are saying because she would have looked like a pinata with as many times as she was supposedly hit in the head by Italian Police to get her story honed.
When someone issues a written retraction immediately after an interrogation saying they were pressured by police officers who struck them in the head to say things they didn't know to be true (especially when they've told the truth the rest of the time), and the police then steadfastly refuse to let anyone hear the recording of the interrogation, that is a clear sign that nothing in the interrogation should be regarded as voluntary.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)I do know what all of the evidence that you are saying is false is what got her convicted, so it does hold weight even if you don't particularly like it.
Nah. What got her convicted was their decision to convict her regardless of the facts.
If the evidence held any weight the judge wouldn't have made sure to block the defense from being able to challenge it.
Kercher Meredith
I agree if there are recordings of the interogation (which apparently are missing) then they should be able to be requested by the defense. I think that her original lawyer could be a witness for the defense as he was there during the interrogation and apparently objected several times to her being harrassed (sounds more verbally than physically, but non the less effective) as the recordings were heard by someone as some point.
QUOTE SeattlePI.com
"Giancarlo Costa was present at the first key interrogations of Knox by prosecutor Giuliano Mignini in the Capanne prison. It was Costa who can be heard on the tapes of the January 2008 interrogation, objecting and requesting that questioning be halted when Knox began crying under pressure from Mignini.
"Giancarlo Costa was present at the first key interrogations of Knox by prosecutor Giuliano Mignini in the Capanne prison. It was Costa who can be heard on the tapes of the January 2008 interrogation, objecting and requesting that questioning be halted when Knox began crying under pressure from Mignini.
Seems like he would have made a good witness to get the interrogation at least questioned. However, there is no debating that she originally went to the police station and blamed an innocent man. Why would she do this?
QUOTE Then, in the course of questioning by police in November 2007, she blamed Patrick Lumumba for the slaying, and said she was present at the scene of the crime. Lumumba was innocent. Knox has since denied she knows anything about the slaying and says she wasn't in the flat the night Kercher was killed. Lumumba is suing Knox for slander.
Sounds like he has a good case and is still to this day pretty upset at his 2week stay in prison at the hands of her accusations. Oh, and why would a totally innocent person do such a thing? They werent punching her in the head when she made such statements as she was being treated as a witness and not a suspect at the time...
What DNA did link her to a knife that may or may not have been used in the killing is not present in enough levels any more for a positive ID, so you can chose to trust the original test or toss it. Interesting that they can only find one of her fingerprints at a place she lives. Swab my house down and you will find my fingerprints everywhere...why is that? Spring Cleaning? Investigators also note a strong smell of bleach upon entering the crime scene.
TimesOnLine
QUOTE Forensic scientists say that only one of Ms Knox's fingerprints - on a glass in the kitchen - was found at the cottage even though she lived there.
Sollecito actually tries to explain the victims potential DNA on the knife by saying it was used at his house for cooking and she cut herself with it. No evidence ever showed he had ever had Kercher to his house for a cooking party. Why fabricate a story?
LiveSecure.com
QUOTE While both sides agree that the exact murder weapon has not been found, the prosecution contends that a knife with a 6 ½ inch blade found in Sollecito's apartment (noting he was a knife collector) was similar to one of the edged weapons used to cut and kill the victim. This same knife, though it had evidence of vigorous cleaning (with investigators noting the powerful smell of bleach in the apartment), was found with the DNA of Knox and trace evidence of DNA that was deemed similar to that of the victim, but due to the miniscule amount of DNA, it could not be positively identified as that of Kercher's. And were it to have been the victim's DNA, Sollecito sought to explain it away stating that the victim had accidently been cut with the knife while cooking in his apartment. The prosecution contends there is no evidence Kercher was ever in Sollecito's apartment and that; in fact, due to her low opinion of Knox, she would not have gone to his apartment.
Agreed, he is obviously not telling the truth here, but why and is it enough combined with other deceptions to convict?
LiveSecure.com
QUOTE Investigators believe that Kercher's bra was cut from her body after her death, perhaps to further support the idea that the victim was assaulted by an unknown offender who had entered the residence via a broken window and cut the bra during a s-xual assault. Although not recovered in the initial CSI processing of the crime scene, a bra clasp was later found on the floor of the murder apartment. On the clasp; the victim's blood and Sollecito's DNA. The prosecution not only believes this evidence places Sollecito at the crime scene, but also puts him with the victim at the time of her murder. The defense, for its part, points out that the clasp was not found for six weeks, indicating it could have been contaminated at the crime scene or even at the police laboratory, this while the prosecution counters with the fact that DNA evidence has been recovered long after other crimes had been committed and still used to convict a suspect.
So what you are left with his either believing that the DNA on the evidence is correct and puts Sollecito at the crime scene (which may explain some of Knox's strange tales) or you believe at this point that the Italian police are forced to fabricate evidence on a significant scale and keep it quiet in order to gain further convictions. Again, reasonable doubt and what it means is in play. Personally, I am not big no conspiracies, they are too hard to keep quiet, but that is me.
QUOTE The defense suggested that an unknown offender, probably Rudy Guede, threw a large rock through a rear window of the victim's residence, this in order to gain entry into the second story and to the victim herself. The prosecution, for its part, argued that the glass from the broken window was on top of items in the room that was already in disarray, I.e., the window was broken after the assault and murder, probably to give the appearance that someone had entered the residence via the broken window. Police point out that the hole created in the window was too small for someone to have entered the room without cutting himself while climbing through the window.
I look at this in a little different way. The killer breaks a window around 8-9pm and tries to sneak up on his victim? Not exactly sure how that surprise s-xual assult will happen after you break a window. Then cleans the apartment up afterwards before leaving...through a door? As big of a guy as Guede was he probably would have cut himself going through that small hole. You don't read a lot of s-xual assults that start with breaking a window...just doesnt seem right. Again, that is my interpretation if I were a juror.
QUOTE The mixed blood evidence. Knox's blood and the blood of the victim were allegedly found comingled in multiple places around the crime scene, to include the bathroom, in one of the bedrooms and in the hallway. While chance would have it that perhaps both women had somehow left blood at one location, the statistical probability that this mixed blood or DNA could be found in multiple locations seems to be a stretch, even for the defense. While it is difficult, if not impossible to accurately date blood evidence, Knox testified that there was no blood in the bathroom the day before Kercher's murder, therefore apparently dating the damning blood evidence to the night of the crime, and by her own statement seeming to place her at the crime scene at or near the time of the victim's death. The same mixture of DNA was found in a bloody footprint in the hallway and in a roommate's bedroom, more evidence that is hard to refute. The defense, though, acknowledges that Knox had entered the residence the morning after Kercher's murder, perhaps accounting for the overlay of physical evidence.
If I walked into a murder scene, I am pretty sure I would be making sure not to trapse around the blood pools.
QUOTE Knox initially told investigators she was in her apartment at the time of Kercher's murder, further indicating that Patrick Lumumba, a Congolese man who owned a local bar where Knox worked, and who allegedly was considering terminating Knox and hiring Kercher, had murdered the victim during a violent attack. Knox and her defense team later indicated Knox was simply responding to a request by police to imagine what she thought could have happened to Kercher vs. Actually being a witness to such an offense. Knox is also being charged with defaming Lumumba, and it will be up to the jury to determine whether Knox tried to implicate another in a murder she had committed or if she was simply overwhelmed by overzealous investigators.
Knox has testified that she could not have been involved in Kercher's murder as she spent the night of the murder in Sollecito's apartment, and in his bed. She also indicated they watched a movie on Sollecito's computer during the believed time of Kercher's murder. Sollecito, for his part, has testified that Knox was in his bed that night, but he was unsure if she stayed the entire night, this as they were both under the influence of drugs that evening. Investigators, for their part, proved that Sollecito's computer was not used during the critical time surrounding Kercher's time of death. Both suspects had also allegedly turned off their cell phones the night of Kercher's death, evidence, actions that the prosecution suggested were taken by the two so as to deny police the ability to trace the location of their phones that night. But could the two, while under the influence of drugs, nonetheless have been so cunning to have thought this out in advance, thereby suggesting some type of premeditation on their part? Were Knox and Sollecito lying to cover their role in Kercher's murder, or were they just too stoned to accurately recall their activities and simply made up a story to cover their lack of memory?
And while Knox continues to profess her innocence as well as her friendship with the victim, the prosecution believes her to be one of three people responsible for Kercher's death, with robbery, revenge and sex being the various motives for the three alleged killers. It his attempt to paint the suspects with the darkest brush possible, the prosecutor has said the three alleged killers acted in an "uncontrolled and drug-fueled crescendo of violence." The Knox and Sollecito defense teams suggest a far simpler motive for murder. Guede, with a past history of drug use and sales, home invasions and crimes committed with a knife, had broken into Kercher's residence while she was home alone, assaulted and murdered her and stole her rent money. He alone is the murderer and he has already been sentenced, so let those who continue to profess their innocence go free. Period.
Knox has testified that she could not have been involved in Kercher's murder as she spent the night of the murder in Sollecito's apartment, and in his bed. She also indicated they watched a movie on Sollecito's computer during the believed time of Kercher's murder. Sollecito, for his part, has testified that Knox was in his bed that night, but he was unsure if she stayed the entire night, this as they were both under the influence of drugs that evening. Investigators, for their part, proved that Sollecito's computer was not used during the critical time surrounding Kercher's time of death. Both suspects had also allegedly turned off their cell phones the night of Kercher's death, evidence, actions that the prosecution suggested were taken by the two so as to deny police the ability to trace the location of their phones that night. But could the two, while under the influence of drugs, nonetheless have been so cunning to have thought this out in advance, thereby suggesting some type of premeditation on their part? Were Knox and Sollecito lying to cover their role in Kercher's murder, or were they just too stoned to accurately recall their activities and simply made up a story to cover their lack of memory?
And while Knox continues to profess her innocence as well as her friendship with the victim, the prosecution believes her to be one of three people responsible for Kercher's death, with robbery, revenge and sex being the various motives for the three alleged killers. It his attempt to paint the suspects with the darkest brush possible, the prosecutor has said the three alleged killers acted in an "uncontrolled and drug-fueled crescendo of violence." The Knox and Sollecito defense teams suggest a far simpler motive for murder. Guede, with a past history of drug use and sales, home invasions and crimes committed with a knife, had broken into Kercher's residence while she was home alone, assaulted and murdered her and stole her rent money. He alone is the murderer and he has already been sentenced, so let those who continue to profess their innocence go free. Period.
I think this quote sums up the situation pretty well. If Knox and Sollecito are innocent, it was because they were basically out of it at Sollecito's place. However, Knox still presents a lie with the movie claim...WHY? They could just as easily said that they were wasted and remember nothing and werent there that evening. That would have been plausible from the start. However, there are layers and layers of deception from the defendants...why? Guede was definitely guilty and there is no really good connection between him and the other two.
My personal opinion is that Sollecito and Knox definitely know more than what they are saying, but may not have actually killed Kercher. If as stated, that Italy does have beyond a reasonable doubt as criteria for conviction, I would have convicted Sollecito and Knox on a charge of maybe accessory to a murder. Sollecito could still have been convicted on s-xual assult based on the evidence, but I don't see how Knox was actually. I believe that they know far more about what happened because of all the backtracking. The police work was pretty bad, but it still doesnt overshadow their excuses in my mind...but I could not have convicted those to the direct murders..but would have convicted them of a lesser role.
Edited: Vincenzo on 22nd Jun, 2011 - 2:31amInternational Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 863 86.3%
Post Date: 23rd Jun, 2011 - 1:03am / Post ID: #
Meredith Kercher
QUOTE (Vincenzo)I think that her original lawyer could be a witness for the defense as he was there during the interrogation
That is incorrect. Her lawyer was not there for the interrogation where they beat a false accusation out of her. You are referring to a later interrogation.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)However, there is no debating that she originally went to the police station and blamed an innocent man. Why would she do this?
She went to the police station because they called her in for questioning.
She blamed an innocent man because they were hitting her in the head and forcing her to do so.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)Sounds like he has a good case
He wouldn't have a case in any system that valued justice. No just system would blame an innocent person for having the police beat a false statement out of them.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)and is still to this day pretty upset at his 2week stay in prison at the hands of her accusations.
After Lumumba's horrific lies about Amanda (which I refuse to even quote), I can't see how he deserves much sympathy.
In any case, it was hardly Amanda's fault that she was forced to accuse him.
And it is hard to see how his stay in jail is the result of her accusation in any case, as she retracted the accusation as soon as the police stopped hitting her in the head.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)Oh, and why would a totally innocent person do such a thing?
Because she wanted the police to stop hitting her in the head.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)They werent punching her in the head when she made such statements
Yes they were. Well, striking her in the head at least. They weren't full-on boxing punches.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)as she was being treated as a witness and not a suspect at the time...
No, they treated her as a suspect from the beginning (despite never having had a reason to do so).
QUOTE (Vincenzo)What DNA did link her to a knife that may or may not have been used in the killing is not present in enough levels any more for a positive ID, so you can chose to trust the original test or toss it.
The DNA was never there to begin with. They just turned up the DNA machine way beyond its limits until it blasted static. Then they trimmed away the static noise spikes that were in the wrong place to match Meredith, and left the static noise spikes that were in the right spot to match Meredith.
Not only that, the knife was too large to have made Meredith's wounds, and it did not match the bloody outline left when the killer set the murder weapon down.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)Interesting that they can only find one of her fingerprints at a place she lives. Swab my house down and you will find my fingerprints everywhere...why is that?
No, it is common for fingerprints to become smudged and obscured. You wouldn't find nearly as many of your prints at your house as you might expect. And Amanda had been spending a lot of time at Raffaele's, so she would not have been making a lot of fresh prints at her own place.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)Investigators also note a strong smell of bleach upon entering the crime scene.
So they say. Why was there no sign of any bleach use?
QUOTE (Vincenzo)Sollecito actually tries to explain the victims potential DNA on the knife by saying it was used at his house for cooking and she cut herself with it. No evidence ever showed he had ever had Kercher to his house for a cooking party. Why fabricate a story?
IF he said it, it would have been because the police told him Meredith's DNA was on the knife, even though it was a lie (if I'm remembering correctly, they hadn't even had time to submit it for testing at that point), and then they used violence to force him to explain their untrue claim.
But I don't think we know he said it.
QUOTE This same knife, though it had evidence of vigorous cleaning
The article here is incorrect. The knife had no evidence of vigorous or otherwise unusual cleaning.
QUOTE The prosecution contends there is no evidence Kercher was ever in Sollecito's apartment and that; in fact, due to her low opinion of Knox, she would not have gone to his apartment.
Meredith did not have a low opinion of Amanda.
QUOTE On the clasp; the victim's blood and Sollecito's DNA. The prosecution not only believes this evidence places Sollecito at the crime scene, but also puts him with the victim at the time of her murder. The defense, for its part, points out that the clasp was not found for six weeks, indicating it could have been contaminated at the crime scene or even at the police laboratory, this while the prosecution counters with the fact that DNA evidence has been recovered long after other crimes had been committed and still used to convict a suspect.
The bra clasp was dumped on the floor and shuffled around from one part of the room to another for more than a month. It was clean and white at the beginning, and black with grime when they finally collected it. Then they contaminated it even further when they collected it using improper procedures.
When they did the DNA test, they found DNA profiles from a lot of people on it. If DNA on the clasp were a sign of guilt, why aren't the rest of the people whose DNA was on the clasp being prosecuted?
In any case, Raffaele's DNA was not on the clasp. They just mixed selected fragments from all the different DNA profiles to fake Raffaele's DNA profile. It was hardly something that would pass for a legitimate DNA test.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)So what you are left with his either believing that the DNA on the evidence is correct and puts Sollecito at the crime scene (which may explain some of Knox's strange tales) or you believe at this point that the Italian police are forced to fabricate evidence on a significant scale and keep it quiet in order to gain further convictions.
Every bit of the supposed evidence against Amanda and Raffaele can be easily shown to have been falsified by Italian officials.
QUOTE The defense suggested that an unknown offender, probably Rudy Guede, threw a large rock through a rear window of the victim's residence, this in order to gain entry into the second story and to the victim herself.
The article glosses over Guede's history of breaking in through windows while carrying a large knife, including at least one other time where he broke in through a second story window by throwing a large rock through it.
QUOTE The prosecution, for its part, argued that the glass from the broken window was on top of items in the room that was already in disarray, I.e., the window was broken after the assault and murder, probably to give the appearance that someone had entered the residence via the broken window.
The broken glass was NOT on top of any items.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)I look at this in a little different way. The killer breaks a window around 8-9pm and tries to sneak up on his victim? Not exactly sure how that surprise s-xual assult will happen after you break a window.
Meredith was not home when Guede broke in. She came home after he was already inside.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)Then cleans the apartment up afterwards before leaving...through a door?
There was very little by way of a cleanup. Yes, Guede left through the door.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)As big of a guy as Guede was he probably would have cut himself going through that small hole.
Yes. And he did.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)You don't read a lot of s-xual assults that start with breaking a window...just doesnt seem right. Again, that is my interpretation if I were a juror.
No, it is a common way for such attacks to happen.
QUOTE The mixed blood evidence. Knox's blood and the blood of the victim were allegedly found comingled
Nonsense! Amanda's blood was not found anywhere, mixed or unmixed.
QUOTE While chance would have it that perhaps both women had somehow left blood at one location, the statistical probability that this mixed blood or DNA could be found in multiple locations seems to be a stretch, even for the defense.
The blood (from Meredith only) was there because Guede was in that bathroom after the attack.
Amanda's DNA (not blood) was there because it was her own bathroom.
QUOTE While it is difficult, if not impossible to accurately date blood evidence, Knox testified that there was no blood in the bathroom the day before Kercher's murder, therefore apparently dating the damning blood evidence to the night of the crime, and by her own statement seeming to place her at the crime scene at or near the time of the victim's death.
The fact that Meredith's blood dated from the murder does not mean that Amanda's DNA in her own bathroom dates to the same period.
QUOTE The same mixture of DNA was found in a bloody footprint in the hallway and in a roommate's bedroom, more evidence that is hard to refute.
Easily refuted. The footprint in question was NOT bloody. It tested negative for blood. Nor can the footprint be linked to the crime in any way. Nor can it be linked to Amanda or Raffaele (or to anyone else).
It had DNA from Amanda and Meredith because their DNA was everywhere in the hallway.
The "footprint" in the roommate's bedroom was not only not bloody (also tested negative for blood), it was not even a footprint. And it was probably the roommate's DNA, not that of Amanda and Meredith.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)If I walked into a murder scene, I am pretty sure I would be making sure not to trapse around the blood pools.
Amanda did not know she was in a murder scene. And there were no blood "pools" where Amanda was walking. Just a few drops of blood in a couple places.
QUOTE Investigators, for their part, proved that Sollecito's computer was not used during the critical time surrounding Kercher's time of death.
No, they erased his hard drive and then lied about him not having used his computer.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)However, Knox still presents a lie with the movie claim...WHY?
She wasn't lying. They were watching movies.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)However, there are layers and layers of deception from the defendants...why?
Nonsense. You can't show a single lie from either Amanda or Raffaele that did not come from the interrogation when the Italian police were beating false statements out of them.
And speaking of layers and layers of deception, name one statement from the Italian officials that is not directly contradicted by the evidence.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)My personal opinion is that Sollecito and Knox definitely know more than what they are saying, but may not have actually killed Kercher. If as stated, that Italy does have beyond a reasonable doubt as criteria for conviction, I would have convicted Sollecito and Knox on a charge of maybe accessory to a murder.
The evidence shows they are completely innocent.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)Sollecito could still have been convicted on s-xual assult based on the evidence
Not when you take into account the fact that the supposed evidence is fictitious.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)I believe that they know far more about what happened because of all the backtracking.
The only time they did any backtracking whatsoever is when Amanda withdrew the false statement that the Italian police had forced her to say.
Edited: Oralloy on 23rd Jun, 2011 - 1:04amMeredith Kercher - Page 6
Other than you just disagreeing with everything presented, can you please provide some other evidence of your convictions. Other than her words, I have yet to see one bit of proof for her being beat into a confession first against Lumumba and then her saying she was at the house then saying she was at Sollecito's house. What I do see chronologically is of her complaining about being pressured (which is pretty much what interrogation means) and slapped (with open hand) on the back of the head when she got a fact wrong - suggesting one slap, to it being a great big beat down of her that lasted hours and beating was the primary method of extraction of data - which would have left some mark on her since she was in there for hours. She hasnt even been able to identify who beat her.
Please give me more information on the DNA Static blast machine. I am interested in this as it sounds as though I could convict OJ of these murders if I wanted to hard enough. My familiarity with DNA must not be as good. Now, I agree you can claim contamination and on that basis the data should be rejected. However, someone still needs to explain how contamination can yield positives for specific people in the area since there is a lot of different DNA in the world. You can even tell me that the laboratory mixed the DNA on purpose, but you got to have proof. You can argue that they used LCN testing and that it isn't that accurate. I am ok with that, but again, what is the likelihood of getting a positive for a few people that know her and arent related to her? I can even accept that someone may say that LCN shouldnt be admissible. That to me is interesting. Just saying it was slopy work still doesnt address the positive result.
Source 3
Source 8
Sollecito admits he made up a bunch of rubbish in his first interview because Amanda convinced him of her understanding of the goings on. Now, having read the above, could Amanda convince you of anything that she knew that evening? Sure, you can tell me that they were boyfriend and girlfriend, but they cant even remember if they slept together and their relationship is only 2wks old at this point. At 2 weeks of a relationship and I am into the girl, I would remember if we had sex that night. Matter of fact, I think even most married couples can remember how many times and when they had sex in the last 2 weeks and married couples have been dating a LONG time.
The attorney left the 2008 interrogation. What I meant is that he would be a good witness for their interrogation techniques as he was already complaining about her treatment at this non-contact interrogation. However, it may not work to their advantage because she broke down crying without so much as a single smack, but he could definitely show that she felt pressure and was witness to it. Torture isn't totally about being smacked around it is mental durress as well and he could testify to it.
Source 9
Source 4
Source 2
Some interesting debate on both sides with interesting facts to back it up.
One bit of recent information is the finding of computer access on Sollecito's computer at 926pm and 500am through MAC files. Now this does support the 2's eventual alibis but don't explain all their clumsy excuses and retractions initially. That is depending on what time you believe the Time of Death to be (9pm'ish or 11pm'ish). Main problem...Sollecito is a computer programmer and could falsify this stuff. Now that would mean he is smart enough to cover that track but not know basics about him being with Knox and if they had sex? If he was that smart he would likely have all his ducks in a row as we say, but again...why the recanting and adjustments to the story that are far from minute?
Source 6
Of course we have the word of Alessi..
Source 9
A convicted toddler murderer that was confided in by Guede that Knox and Sollecito were not involved and it was another unknown accomplice that killed Kercher. Character issues abound here as he is being accused of providing false testimony in another case in Italy. Interesting hypothesis though... Not to mention, there is another person that through hersay has admitted to killing Kercher and that is Aveillo's brother. What a mess.
But I can agree that beyond a reasonable doubt for murder of Kercher on the part of Sollecito and Knox doesnt seem possible, which is why I would have to convict them of lesser crimes or let them walk. s-xual assult would only be there if there was Sollecito's DNA there. You believe or don't believe the DNA results, but I would like to understand the statistical likihood of creating a false positive by jacking up the noise on the DNA machine. If it were noise, that is random. I would expect foreign DNA that doesnt match anyone...at all. The footprint is what links Knox to the crime scene. You can admit it as evidence, but there seems to be enough doubt of the footprint. Guede was there...no doubt.
I understand them summarily trying to discredit anyone or anything that handled the evidence, but this does come with a underlying tone that their excuses arent valid so they have to go this route...which would be true both ways.
I would like to continue to debate the subject, but can only do so if you present data other than just saying no that is wrong. Edited: Vincenzo on 23rd Jun, 2011 - 9:19am
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 863 86.3%
Post Date: 24th Jun, 2011 - 10:25pm / Post ID: #
Meredith Kercher Politics Business Civil & History - Page 6
QUOTE (Vincenzo)Other than you just disagreeing with everything presented, can you please provide some other evidence of your convictions. Other than her words, I have yet to see one bit of proof for her being beat into a confession first against Lumumba and then her saying she was at the house then saying she was at Sollecito's house.
Besides her words, there is also the fact that the Italian Police refuse to let anyone hear the recording of the interrogation.
And there is also the fact that "her words" came in the form of an immediate retraction.
Also there is the fact that, aside from that one interrogation, she has been consistent and truthful.
Anytime someone gives a written retraction immediately after an interrogation, that says they were pressured into saying something they did not know to be true, and the police refuse to let anyone hear the recording of the interrogation, it is unreasonable to treat anything said in the interrogation as voluntary.
About the only thing I could link to is Amanda's retraction, but you've already linked it (source 3).
Note:
QUOTE In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly.
I'm not sure how I could link to the recording that the Italian Police are hiding, as they are hiding it.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)What I do see chronologically is of her complaining about being pressured (which is pretty much what interrogation means)
Interrogation is asking questions. Pressuring someone to say something you want to hear is coercion.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)and slapped (with open hand) on the back of the head when she got a fact wrong - suggesting one slap, to it being a great big beat down of her that lasted hours and beating was the primary method of extraction of data - which would have left some mark on her since she was in there for hours.
Slapping someone across the head whenever you don't like what they are saying counts as beating a false statement out of them.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)She hasnt even been able to identify who beat her.
She might not be able to identify them. A dozen people in uniform subjecting someone to hours of abuse can be pretty disorienting.
Or, given all the other abuses of the Italian Police, maybe she's afraid to name her attacker.
QUOTE (Vincenzo) Please give me more information on the DNA Static blast machine. I am interested in this as it sounds as though I could convict OJ of these murders if I wanted to hard enough.
No just court would convict on a false DNA result.
A DNA readout has a lot of little spikes that are just background noise. With a normal DNA reading, the spikes from actual DNA are far stronger than the background noise and you can tell the difference. You might not even notice the background noise on the graph compared to the DNA spikes.
But if you turn the amplification up to a high enough extreme, the spikes from background noise look like a spike from the presence of DNA.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)However, someone still needs to explain how contamination can yield positives for specific people in the area since there is a lot of different DNA in the world. You can even tell me that the laboratory mixed the DNA on purpose, but you got to have proof.
The lab didn't do any mixing. The DNA on the bra clasp was mixed already, because the DNA was on the clasp due to contamination.
You get a fake positive because with all the overlapping DNA profiles there are spikes all over the place. All you have to do is keep the spikes that are in the right place for the profile you want to accuse, and reject all the rest.
The only way of even having a chance of getting an accurate result with mixed DNA like this, is if you manage to work out every single DNA profile that is present so that you actually know which spikes on the graph belong to which profile.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)You can argue that they used LCN testing and that it isn't that accurate.
LCN testing can be accurate if done correctly. LCN is what they claimed to be doing when they pretended that the static noise was Meredith's DNA on the knife.
However, they seem to have violated every known LCN procedure. Among the most important violations, LCN procedure requires multiple runs to try to rule out the random static spikes which at that amplification can look like actual DNA. They admit that they could only do a single run, so their alleged LCN test on the knife was not legitimate just on that one point alone.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)I am ok with that, but again, what is the likelihood of getting a positive for a few people that know her and arent related to her?
If you mix a bunch of DNA, and then just pick out spikes that match one specific profile, your chances of being able to get a positive match to anyone you want are very high.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)Sollecito admits he made up a bunch of rubbish in his first interview because Amanda convinced him of her understanding of the goings on.
That came from the interrogation where the Italian Police were forcing everyone to lie.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)Now, having read the above, could Amanda convince you of anything that she knew that evening? Sure, you can tell me that they were boyfriend and girlfriend, but they cant even remember if they slept together and their relationship is only 2wks old at this point.
They could remember. It is just in that particular interrogation, remembering something that the Italian Police didn't want to hear would earn them smacks across the head.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)One bit of recent information is the finding of computer access on Sollecito's computer at 926pm and 500am through MAC files. Now this does support the 2's eventual alibis but don't explain all their clumsy excuses and retractions initially.
Every single clumsy excuse and retraction comes from the interrogation where the Italian Police forced them to lie.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)but again...why the recanting and adjustments to the story that are far from minute?
Because the Italian Police forced them to. You're still referring to that one interrogation where they were forced to lie.
They did not change their story aside from this one interrogation.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)A convicted toddler murderer that was confided in by Guede that Knox and Sollecito were not involved and it was another unknown accomplice that killed Kercher.
Given the strong evidence that Guede did the crime all by himself, it is safe to discount any witness who says that there were multiple attackers.
It may well be that Guede really told a number of people that his imaginary friend did it. But Guede was by himself when he did it.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)You believe or don't believe the DNA results, but I would like to understand the statistical likihood of creating a false positive by jacking up the noise on the DNA machine. If it were noise, that is random. I would expect foreign DNA that doesnt match anyone...at all.
Any static spike that is in the wrong spot to match Meredith, is presumed to be static and gets discarded as such. That leaves only the static that happens to be in a spot to match Meredith.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)The footprint is what links Knox to the crime scene. You can admit it as evidence, but there seems to be enough doubt of the footprint.
Footprint? There is no footprint linking Amanda to the crime scene.
QUOTE (Vincenzo)I would like to continue to debate the subject, but can only do so if you present data other than just saying no that is wrong.
Aside from Amanda's written retraction that you've already linked, I'm not sure what there is for me to link.
In any case, I don't think I can link until I've made 100 posts.
I suppose I could link to something about bogus DNA results, once I've made 100 posts. There is a place called "View from Wilmington" that does a good job of talking about the DNA tests.
TOPIC: Meredith Kercher