• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have been thinking about the DNA on the bra clasp with profiles of Meredith, Raffaele, and at least 2 other unidentified profiles. How did those unidentified profiles get there? Could they have gotten there the same way as Raffaele's? If you look at the video of the collection of the bra clasp, they all have little footsies on, as it should be as not to contaminate the evidence. I wonder if they put these on out in the living room or hallway before they entered Meredith's room? I am sure there could have been DNA on the floor that came in with these footsies. No problem as long as you either don't step on the bra clasp or say pick it up and drop it on a different spot of the floor where several of you had just been walking (Oooops).

Charlie, any idea where they put their gloves and footsies on before they entered Merediths room? Does other video give us an idea on this?
 
Hasn't the discussion about stomach contents gone on for long enough. If it is all so cut and dried, the defence will be using it at the appeal. It will then either float or not. Why go on about it?

By the way, are we now all agreed that how the question regarding the phone call to the mother is immaterial? Her mother remembered the call, Knox didn't or else she was lying.

Simple!

( by the way, my time zone converter works differently from the one supplied above. However, I realise that it has no bearing whatsoever on her testimony regarding the call home. )
 
treehorn said:
They didn't quite manage to clean up "their own evidence":

RS left his DNA in MK's bedroom, on MK's bra clasp.

RS may also have left his bloody footprint on the bath mat.

AK left her DNA in a drop of MK's blood inside Filomena's private bedroom.

AK also left her DNA on the handle of one of the knives used to attack MK.
It's not "magic" - it's science, reason and common sense.
Click to expand...

RS left his DNA in MK's bedroom, on MK's bra clasp.

If RS did remove the bra clasp, how do we know the bra wasn't borrowed from Amanda? How do we know it didn't just pick up dandriff from the floor? As a test were any of the bra clasps of Amanda tested to see if they had any of RS's DNA? If the bra was cut off, why was there any DNA on it? (I can probably cut off a bra clasp without depositing DNA.) I couldn't even begin to put a number of either confidence or probability on this piece of evidence showing any useful information. The judge should have thrown this 'evidence' out.

RS may also have left his bloody footprint on the bath mat.

I would guess, from the overlay, that the bloody footprint was more likely Guede's. However, as you say, it is possible that it is RS's. We are dealing with a 2D overlay of a foot print onto a 2D overlay of a picture on a rug. The foot is a 3D surface. The rug is also a 3D surface with an uneven texture. Not only that, but we don't know that the blood was even on the surface of the foot or that it didn't wick into the mat. My theory would be that Guede walked down the hall in his bare feet and then cleaned up the footprints in the hall with the towels which he then threw into the room. The only problem is, why would Guede (or RS) have taken off their shoe in the murder room? If Guede did the murder, couldn't RS have stumbled on to the murder scene in the morning, tried to see if MK needed help, accidentally left a footprint then thought he might be accused and have cleaned it up?

AK left her DNA in a drop of MK's blood inside Filomena's private bedroom.

I don't know what this means. AK could have sneezed in Filomena's bedroom and then a drop of blood from Guede's knife could have landed on a contaminated surface. Mere speculation. Haven't heard about this 'evidence'. The problem is that AK's DNA should have been everywhere. If she had lived there for a whole year, it probably would have been totally everywhere. I accidentally cut my feet once a week by tearing off toenails or cutting off callouses with a razor blade. Women have periods. I don't know what this means.

AK also left her DNA on the handle of one of the knives used to attack MK

AK left her DNA on the handle of a knife she used at RS's place. It doesn't mean it was used in the attack. The two knife theory seems to be an implausible theory. The two knife theory has been debated elsewhere. The LCN DNA was most likely contamination. Contamination is the most plausible scenario.
 
colonelhall said:
Hasn't the discussion about stomach contents gone on for long enough. If it is all so cut and dried, the defence will be using it at the appeal. It will then either float or not. Why go on about it?

By the way, are we now all agreed that how the question regarding the phone call to the mother is immaterial? Her mother remembered the call, Knox didn't or else she was lying.

Simple!

( by the way, my time zone converter works differently from the one supplied above. However, I realise that it has no bearing whatsoever on her testimony regarding the call home. )
Click to expand...

The same could be said about Comodi. Either she was lying or accidently giving the wrong time.
 
treehorn said:
It appears to be the case that they staged the break-in to point the 'finger of blame' at someone, anyone, that:

a) did not live at the cottage; or

b) did not have reason to visit with someone that lived at the cottage.

It wasn't an irrational plan, necessarily, but it was poorly executed.
Click to expand...

When did this hypothetical break-in happen?

Why would someone have staged a bloody murder in their own flat in the first place? Seems an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. OK, the whole thing is crazy anyway, so let's find the answer to a crazy hypothesis of a crazy event.

Guede had three similar break-ins in the previous month alone, so why was this break-in considered a staged event other than to implicate RS and AK?

Too many questions, so let's start at the end of the event and work forward. WHEN DID THE HYPOTHETICAL STAGING HAPPEN?

At least with people who murder for insurance money or inheiritance, they take years to plan their crimes. Consequently staging something is plausible in a murder for insurance money or inheiratance, but not this. They came to the country. A few days later someone thought "Ah, let's kill the roomate for the fun of it". Then they say, "Let's get Guede to help". "Then we'll stage a break-in so it doesn't look like we did it. Great plan! Does everybody agree? Let's do it!"

It doesn't even fit with crazy; it's beyond crazy! Two people in love only think of each other. I've had weeks totally lost in love when I was young.
 
Chris C said:
What did the prosecution enter into evidence that proved a Staged Break In?
Click to expand...

At trial, Filomena testified to seeing broken glass on top of her clothes. If you assume that the clothes were thrown on the floor by someone searching the room, this supposedly proves the window was broken after the room was searched. But if Filomena's left her clothes on the floor, it proves nothing.

There was also the opinion of an officer of the Posts and Telecommunications police who was first on the scene.

What I don't understand is how experience tracking down prank calls and stolen cell phones makes you an expert on staged burglaries.
 
"The same could be said about Comodi. Either she was lying or accidently giving the wrong time."

Not at all. There was no reason for her to do this. Mid Day, 12.00, 12.47. Everyone knew that this referred to a particular call. You can go on arguing forever, but it just distracting, as is most of the stuff here.

The defence will do their job, come the appeal. Armchair detectives mean nothing.
 
Dan O. said:
Obviously christianahannah thinks Amanda called her mom at 12. It's funny that this call didn't show up in Amanda's phone records.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think that.

BTW, someone should pass this link to Comodi for the next time she needs to convert times to different timezones: http://www.worldtimeserver.com/convert_time_in_IT.aspx?y=2010&mo=11&d=1&h=12&mn=0
Click to expand...

The link would also be useful for Amanda and her mother since they both testified to roughly the same time as Comodi.
 
treehorn said:
"emergency"?

I feel no urgent/ emergent 'need' to have any particular argument prevail.

I'm interested only in the truth simpliciter - whatever it may be.

I think it would be fair to characterize my post as underscoring the need to remember that we do not have access to all of the information that was made available to the triers of fact.

(Not that I think you are unaware of this state of affairs. Far from it.)
Click to expand...
The information on the internet, which is all we have, is partial. The best documentation to prove guilt is withheld by those releasing trial documents.

Other than Italian periodicals, the Knox camp is releasing most of what is out there.

The prosecution has no need to make this a public trial. Its case is solid and has prevailed in all judicial decisions.
 
colonelhall said:
The defence will do their job, come the appeal. Armchair detectives mean nothing.
Click to expand...
They do mean something when a flagrant case of investigative railroading is discussed.

Just ask Marty Tankleff. He was found "guilty" and it took SEVENTEEN YEARS for concerned citizens to win his freedom. The case against Mr.Tankleff made no sense.

Public discussion of court cases serves as a jury would in a trial and might actually overturn convictions.

What is at stake is the finding of truth.
 
piktor said:
The information on the internet, which is all we have, is partial. The best documentation to prove guilt is withheld by those releasing trial documents.

Other than Italian periodicals, the Knox camp is releasing most of what is out there.

The prosecution has no need to make this a public trial. Its case is solid and has prevailed in all judicial decisions.
Click to expand...

The prosecution has secret evidence that proves the defendants are guilty? :rolleyes:
 
Chris C said:
Because I have a stomach?
or
Maybe because I have not only learned a few things from reading up on how the stomach works, but also because I've talked to doctors because I have GERD.
One of the wierdest symptoms I suffer from is empty stomach. When my stomach acts up and the heartburn starts, if my stomach is empty I get dizzy and nauseous. Doesnt matter what I eat/drink so long as my stomach isn't empty the nausea and dizziness go away. Happens about once a week. I'm not diabetic. I dont have an ulcer. I dont have any form of digestive cancer. I just eat or drink something when I get nauseous or dizzy and it goes away. Believe it or not this started after I quit smoking.
Click to expand...

Sounds more like a blood glucose issue than a result of GERD. You could have some kind of reactive hypoglycemia going on. Anyway, you having GERD (as does most of the population in the U.S.) does not qualify you as an expert on the stomach contents of Meredith Kercher at the time of her murder.
 
Phone Calls: Times, Lies, and yet Another Conspiracy

May I suggest that the multi-page, multi day profusion of arguments about Prosecutor Comodi's examination of later unanimously convicted murderess Amanda Knox's call to Edda have become a very circular tirade, tiredly redundant and just plain meaningless.

Judge Massei negated the thousand word or so effort here to nit pick what the actual time was and motivation for any mistakes about it, when he found it necessary to inject himself into the testimony.

His extremely crystallizing observation about the call being made 'in the middle of the night'; a time when such calls are not ordinarily made seems to me to make more repeated Google cut and pasting of time zones and conjecture about Prosecutor's Comodi's mistake and/or motives to be little more than a pointless exercise in futility.

Judge Massei's subsequent final direct statements to Amanda showed just how evasive and deceitful her convenient parsing about 'not remembering' really was.

Amanda's reply surely seems sufficient to be the 'last words' on this matter.
Amanda's answer to the Judge ..."Yes, yes, of course"
 
christianahannah said:
Dan O. said:
Obviously christianahannah thinks Amanda called her mom at 12. It's funny that this call didn't show up in Amanda's phone records.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think that.
Click to expand...


Then why is Amanda's mother perplexed about the first phone call? What is known to have happened before this call was made? What was Edda's advice to her daughter?

After you have answered those questions, answer this: Why is Amanda's mother asking Amanda in a prison visit about a phone call made at Noon "Before anything had happened"?


I have already given my answers. You may wish to review them.
 
pilot padron said:
May I suggest that the multi-page, multi day profusion of arguments about Prosecutor Comodi's examination of later unanimously convicted murderess Amanda Knox's call to Edda have become a very circular tirade, tiredly redundant and just plain meaningless.

Judge Massei negated the thousand word or so effort here to nit pick what the actual time was and motivation for any mistakes about it, when he found it necessary to inject himself into the testimony.

His extremely crystallizing observation about the call being made 'in the middle of the night'; a time when such calls are not ordinarily made seems to me to make more repeated Google cut and pasting of time zones and conjecture about Prosecutor's Comodi's mistake and/or motives to be little more than a pointless exercise in futility.

Judge Massei's subsequent final direct statements to Amanda showed just how evasive and deceitful her convenient parsing about 'not remembering' really was.

Amanda's reply surely seems sufficient to be the 'last words' on this matter.
Amanda's answer to the Judge ..."Yes, yes, of course"
Click to expand...
This is a murder trial but defendant Knox chose to treat it as a hide-and-seek exercise. "Stubborn naivety" comes to mind.

With her stories, Knox put herself where she is now.
 
pilot padron said:
His extremely crystallizing observation about the call being made 'in the middle of the night'; a time when such calls are not ordinarily made seems to me to make more repeated Google cut and pasting of time zones and conjecture about Prosecutor's Comodi's mistake and/or motives to be little more than a pointless exercise in futility.
Click to expand...

The call was made at 12:47 in the afternoon.

And as has been pointed out before, the issue is not the exact timing of the call. It's the false claim that it was made "before anything had happened". The call was made after finding a door left open, blood in the bathroom, a locked door, a missing flatmate who wasn't answering her phone and a broken window. The call was made when there was ample cause for concern over what happened to Meredith. Concern that was proven justified only a short time later.
 
Is it possible to reach a consensus on this board about the evidentiary value of the footprint on the bathmat?

The strongest argument SomeAlibi presented was his claim that the print on the bathmat matched Sollecito’s foot print with ‘millimeter precision’. That was such a bold claim that at first I took him at his word.

Now that I have read the discussion about the foot print, and looked at the photo evidence, I find Some Alibi’s claim to be absurd, frankly, and a self-disparaging argument to have made, in that his credibility dropped precipitously.

Is there anyone here still making the claim that Sollecito’s foot matches the footprint on the bathmat to millimeter precision?

Or are you arguing, it can’t be Guede’s , therefore it must be Sollecito’s?
 
colonelhall said:
"The same could be said about Comodi. Either she was lying or accidently giving the wrong time."

Not at all. There was no reason for her to do this. Mid Day, 12.00, 12.47. Everyone knew that this referred to a particular call. You can go on arguing forever, but it just distracting, as is most of the stuff here.
Click to expand...


When the calls are separated by less than 45 minutes you can't go truncating the majority of an hour off the time and expect everybody to know exactly which call you are referring to. By the time of the trial, Amanda had obviously been over the timeline with her lawyer. There was no call at 12 noon. There was no call "before anything happened". Amanda did not remember a call at 12 when she was at Raffaele's place. Amanda did remember a call at 12:47 when she was at the cottage. This call was when there was sufficient concern to warrant seeking advice. Have you got a problem accepting that?


The defence will do their job, come the appeal. Armchair detectives mean nothing.
Click to expand...

Then what is your purpose here other than to try and spread disinformation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom