Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 


Last visit was: Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:57 am
It is currently Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:57 am
All times are UTC

Forum rules

Evidence

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 1 of 1 [ 18 posts ]
Author Message

Offline BoneDawg


Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:58 pm

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:08 pm   Post subject: Evidence   

This case seems to be all about people's characters, and very little about evidence. Maybe I have watched too many episodes of CSI, but isn't the physical evidence supposed to paint a pretty clear picture of what happened?

I think a lot of questions are being left unanswered about the physical evidence:

We have:

A partially dressed body with brusies and cuts, including the fatal one to the neck
What clothing was left on the victim? We see some jeans on the floor in the Scene photo, we know the bra came off at some point, so I think we can assume the shirt came off as well, so that leaves perhaps the bottom half of the underwear? Why would the bra have been ripped off so violently, but the underwear left on? I thought there was evidence inside of the victim pointing to sexual assault? Hard to get inside through the underwear.
Where, and what types were the brusies and cuts? This info could paint a pretty clear picture about how/if she was held, and perhaps by who (Guede looks like a big guy, Sollecito is small, and Knox smaller).

A bloody bedroom
In a big struggle that shows as much blood loss as seen in the Scene photos, you would think there would be all kinds of footprints/handpirints/transfers within the blood from the assailants. Is it true there was some kind of knife outline in blood found on the duvet cover? If in fact, Knox's blood in the bathroom came from the struggle, why would be there no Knox blood in the bedroom (where the struggle occured), and why would no one have Knox checked for wounds (maybe the small one apparently on her neck?). Also, why was not everything in the room collected and analysed? Why was the mattress (later stolen) left there? Why was a whole suitcase of knives (later stolen) left there without being taken for processing?

A large bloody shoeprint at the foot of the body
was this proven to have come from Guede?

A bra clasp ripped or cut from the original bra
This is odd to me ... I have some bra-removing experience, and these things are tough! I would expect the metal part of the clasp to bend rather than the material ripping, as shown in the Scene videos.

A bloody barefoot footprint on bathmat
Has this been analysed as to the size of the foot, the arch type ... this could rule out Knox or Sollecito as having produced the footprint. Also is odd, because if the prints in the room are of shoes, why is the one in the bathroom of a bare foot, unless this was produced when Knox had a shower the day after ... but with that much blood, who would have a shower before getting authorities involved?

A broken window with blood
Has this blood been analysed? who does it belong to?

A rock?
Was there a rock found in the other roomate's bedroom? If so, has this been analysed, and who's fingerprints/DNA is on it?

A knife said to contain DNA from Knox on the handle and Kercher in the goove of the blade
Does this knife match the wounds on the victim? Does it match the bloody outline on the duvet cover? If the judge agrees this is non-contaminated evidence - is this all the prosecutors need to convict Knox?

And some evidence that I haven't seen any talk about:

Fingernail scrapings:
There was a struggle ... do you not think that some DNA/skin from the assailants would end up under the fingernails of the victim? Or of the victim under the fingernails of the assailant? You would think that if the police were suspecting Knox and Sollecito hours after the murder this DNA is still going to be present under their fingernails. No mention of this anywhere?

Transfer DNA:
If in fact one of the assailants was subduing the victim, would there not be any transfer of clothing fibres (assuming the assailant(s) were clothed, based on the shoeprints ... I doubt someone would be naked except for their shoes).

Downstairs evidence:
Besides the one two-second clip of the woman breaking down the downstairs door .... there is no talk of what was found downstairs. Was anything found down there?



In my opinion, too much is being made of cell phone records, attitudes, computer usage and less than upstanding members of society's apparent eye-witness accounts ... and not enough being made of what the physical evidence at the crime scene shows. Maybe this investigation was too seriously botched ... or maybe this evidence will be discussed later in the trial .... either way we will have to endure this drip-by-drip info on this case for the next 6 months.l
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:33 pm   Post subject: Re: Evidence   

BoneDawg wrote:
This case seems to be all about people's characters, and very little about evidence. Maybe I have watched too many episodes of CSI, but isn't the physical evidence supposed to paint a pretty clear picture of what happened?


The forensic evidence hasn't been covered yet, but it will be and it will be covered in depth. We know already that Knox and Sollecito gave triple alibis, lied repeatedly to the police and still don't have a credible alibis for the night of the murder.

Numerous witnesses: the postal police, officers from the Perugia Flying Squad, the Murder Squad, the Narcotics Squad, the police intepreters, Meredith's English friends and the Italian housemates have all flatly contradicted Knox's claims. They have destroyed what little credibility Knox had left.

The significance of Knox and Sollecito lying repeatedly cannot be stressed enough. The ONLY plausible explanation for them deliberately and repeatedly lying to he police is that they were involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

It is clear Knox wasn't beaten or asked to envision what might have happened on the night of the murder. She accused Diya Lumumba of her own volition. Knox's lawyers tried to get her confession that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed thrown out, but Judge Massei accepted it as evidence.

A woman bloody shoeprint, which matched the foot size of Knox, was found on a pillow underneath Meredith's body. This places two people in Meredith's room when she was murdered. We already know that Knox’s footprint was set in Meredith’s blood in the hallway outside Meredith’s room.

BoneDawg wrote:
I think a lot of questions are being left unanswered about the physical evidence:

We see some jeans on the floor in the Scene photo, we know the bra came off at some point, so I think we can assume the shirt came off as well, so that leaves perhaps the bottom half of the underwear? Why would the bra have been ripped off so violently, but the underwear left on? I thought there was evidence inside of the victim pointing to sexual assault? Hard to get inside through the underwear.
Where, and what types were the brusies and cuts? This info could paint a pretty clear picture about how/if she was held, and perhaps by who (Guede looks like a big guy, Sollecito is small, and Knox smaller).


It has been established for definite that Meredith's bra was removed some time after she had been killed. Rudy Guede DNA was found on a vaginal swab, which is one of the main reasons he was convicted of sexual assault. Meredith's underwear had been removed. It's a good idea to get your facts straight before making ignorant and inaccurate comments.

I highly recommend the powerpoint presentations by Kermit and Nicki, which can be found on here and on TJMK. It’s quite clear from Kermit’s powerpoint presentation about the bloody footprints that there were three people at the crime scene on the night of the murder. Nicki’s powerpoint presentations help the layperson gain a better understanding of the complex subject of forenic science and the Italian legal system.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:00 pm   Post subject: Re: Evidence   

BoneDawg wrote:
This case seems to be all about people's characters, and very little about evidence. Maybe I have watched too many episodes of CSI, but isn't the physical evidence supposed to paint a pretty clear picture of what happened?

I think a lot of questions are being left unanswered about the physical evidence:

We have:

A partially dressed body with brusies and cuts, including the fatal one to the neck
What clothing was left on the victim? We see some jeans on the floor in the Scene photo, we know the bra came off at some point, so I think we can assume the shirt came off as well, so that leaves perhaps the bottom half of the underwear? Why would the bra have been ripped off so violently, but the underwear left on? I thought there was evidence inside of the victim pointing to sexual assault? Hard to get inside through the underwear.
Where, and what types were the brusies and cuts? This info could paint a pretty clear picture about how/if she was held, and perhaps by who (Guede looks like a big guy, Sollecito is small, and Knox smaller).

A bloody bedroom
In a big struggle that shows as much blood loss as seen in the Scene photos, you would think there would be all kinds of footprints/handpirints/transfers within the blood from the assailants. Is it true there was some kind of knife outline in blood found on the duvet cover? If in fact, Knox's blood in the bathroom came from the struggle, why would be there no Knox blood in the bedroom (where the struggle occured), and why would no one have Knox checked for wounds (maybe the small one apparently on her neck?). Also, why was not everything in the room collected and analysed? Why was the mattress (later stolen) left there? Why was a whole suitcase of knives (later stolen) left there without being taken for processing?

A large bloody shoeprint at the foot of the body
was this proven to have come from Guede?

A bra clasp ripped or cut from the original bra
This is odd to me ... I have some bra-removing experience, and these things are tough! I would expect the metal part of the clasp to bend rather than the material ripping, as shown in the Scene videos.


A bloody barefoot footprint on bathmat
Has this been analysed as to the size of the foot, the arch type ... this could rule out Knox or Sollecito as having produced the footprint. Also is odd, because if the prints in the room are of shoes, why is the one in the bathroom of a bare foot, unless this was produced when Knox had a shower the day after ... but with that much blood, who would have a shower before getting authorities involved?

A broken window with blood
Has this blood been analysed? who does it belong to?


A rock?
Was there a rock found in the other roomate's bedroom? If so, has this been analysed, and who's fingerprints/DNA is on it?


A knife said to contain DNA from Knox on the handle and Kercher in the goove of the blade
Does this knife match the wounds on the victim? Does it match the bloody outline on the duvet cover? If the judge agrees this is non-contaminated evidence - is this all the prosecutors need to convict Knox?


And some evidence that I haven't seen any talk about:

Fingernail scrapings:
There was a struggle ... do you not think that some DNA/skin from the assailants would end up under the fingernails of the victim? Or of the victim under the fingernails of the assailant? You would think that if the police were suspecting Knox and Sollecito hours after the murder this DNA is still going to be present under their fingernails. No mention of this anywhere?


Transfer DNA:
If in fact one of the assailants was subduing the victim, would there not be any transfer of clothing fibres (assuming the assailant(s) were clothed, based on the shoeprints ... I doubt someone would be naked except for their shoes).

Downstairs evidence:
Besides the one two-second clip of the woman breaking down the downstairs door .... there is no talk of what was found downstairs. Was anything found down the
re?



In my opinion, too much is being made of cell phone records, attitudes, computer usage and less than upstanding members of society's apparent eye-witness accounts ... and not enough being made of what the physical evidence at the crime scene shows. Maybe this investigation was too seriously botched ... or maybe this evidence will be discussed later in the trial .... either way we will have to endure this drip-by-drip info on this case for the next 6 months.l


Just adding a few comments:
-The underware was not left on
-There has been a clean-up so most of "all kind of footprints etc" has been erased
-All items of interest were taken and analyzed -the bra clasp on a later date-. However the crime scene had been sealed. Evidently the mattress was left there because the LE had already got all the info they could possibly get ; the set of knives was sealed in plastic and unused so it was left there being of no interest to the police
- I have no experience removing third parties bras, but cutting a bra when attaching-raping-humiliating a woman is a scene often seen in violent porno movies and comics
- Bloody barefoot prints are not fingerprints and all the investigators could get out of it was compatibility with those of the suspects.
-Blood found in the room with the broken window belongs to Meredith
-A rock weighting four kgs has been found. To my knowledge no fingerprints nor DNA were found of it, which doesn't surprise me, since the rock surface is probably coarse
-The knife is not "said" to carry Meredith and Amanda's DNA. It does show traces of Meredith on the blade and Amanda on the knife. The knife is compatible with one of the wounds-the final stab- More than one knife has been used to inflict the other wounds. So the fact that the murder weapon may not match the bloody outline has not be deemed very significative by the judge
-Fingernails scrapings: no scrapings, which makes sense if Meredith has been immobilized by third parties. No cells from Guede have been found under her fingernails
-Transfer of DNA: no transfer of DNA from Guede has been found, and he 's the one who has raped Meredith according to the court. If no other DNA has beenfound from Guede who had such a close contact with Meredith, T, it doesn't surprise me that no trace was found from the other assilant(s)
-Downstairs: police found some feline (cat) blood, from the tenent's wounded cat
-Cell phone records and computer usage could provide an alibi to defendants, so I think they are very important and therefore should be discussed at lenght-as they have been- Observation of behaviors and psychological attitudes of suspects is a standard police invetigation technique. So I am not surprised those details have also been throughly discussed.

Quite a puzzle uh? Hope the above helps to clear a bit.
Top Profile 

Offline rach


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:54 pm

Posts: 12

Location: new york

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:53 am   Post subject:    

hi bonedawg..
a good resource to help answer these questions would be several posts on True Justice For Meredith Kercher (aka TJMK) that go over Judge Micheli's reasons for sending the two current defendants to trial (he was the final judge out of ten judges that decided there was enough evidence to move forward towards trial..he is actually the judge that made the final decision that amanda knox and raffaelle sollecito would have to stand trial)...these posts go over some important points from Judge Micheli's 106 page report and may answer a lot of questions you may have..they did for me. Thanks to Nicki and Brian S.

i'm not great with computers so i hope this link will get you there:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C343/
Top Profile 

Offline BoneDawg


Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:58 pm

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:47 pm   Post subject:    

Thanks everyone for the added information - all peices of evidence that have not been disucssed as thouroghly in the media as the assailants character has.

The evidence will tell the truth as it appears it already has started to do (three people in the room, meredith's blood in other room (proviing robbery was a staging).

The saddest thing is, if this is what happened, we will never know why.
Top Profile 

Offline Motorhead


Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:37 am

Posts: 31

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:44 am   Post subject: Re: Evidence   

The Machine wrote:
BoneDawg wrote:
This case seems to be all about people's characters, and very little about evidence. Maybe I have watched too many episodes of CSI, but isn't the physical evidence supposed to paint a pretty clear picture of what happened?


The forensic evidence hasn't been covered yet, but it will be and it will be covered in depth. We know already that Knox and Sollecito gave triple alibis, lied repeatedly to the police and still don't have a credible alibis for the night of the murder.

Numerous witnesses: the postal police, officers from the Perugia Flying Squad, the Murder Squad, the Narcotics Squad, the police intepreters, Meredith's English friends and the Italian housemates have all flatly contradicted Knox's claims. They have destroyed what little credibility Knox had left.

The significance of Knox and Sollecito lying repeatedly cannot be stressed enough. The ONLY plausible explanation for them deliberately and repeatedly lying to he police is that they were involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher.


It is clear Knox wasn't beaten or asked to envision what might have happened on the night of the murder. She accused Diya Lumumba of her own volition. Knox's lawyers tried to get her confession that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed thrown out, but Judge Massei accepted it as evidence.

A woman bloody shoeprint, which matched the foot size of Knox, was found on a pillow underneath Meredith's body. This places two people in Meredith's room when she was murdered. We already know that Knox’s footprint was set in Meredith’s blood in the hallway outside Meredith’s room.

BoneDawg wrote:
I think a lot of questions are being left unanswered about the physical evidence:

We see some jeans on the floor in the Scene photo, we know the bra came off at some point, so I think we can assume the shirt came off as well, so that leaves perhaps the bottom half of the underwear? Why would the bra have been ripped off so violently, but the underwear left on? I thought there was evidence inside of the victim pointing to sexual assault? Hard to get inside through the underwear.
Where, and what types were the brusies and cuts? This info could paint a pretty clear picture about how/if she was held, and perhaps by who (Guede looks like a big guy, Sollecito is small, and Knox smaller).



It has been established for definite that Meredith's bra was removed some time after she had been killed. Rudy Guede DNA was found on a vaginal swab, which is one of the main reasons he was convicted of sexual assault. Meredith's underwear had been removed. It's a good idea to get your facts straight before making ignorant and inaccurate comments.

I highly recommend the powerpoint presentations by Kermit and Nicki, which can be found on here and on TJMK. It’s quite clear from Kermit’s powerpoint presentation about the bloody footprints that there were three people at the crime scene on the night of the murder. Nicki’s powerpoint presentations help the layperson gain a better understanding of the complex subject of forenic science and the Italian legal system.


No, it does not. That's the most insane thing I've ever read.
Top Profile 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:09 am   Post subject:    

Motorhead, if all of your knowlege and your opinion of this case is based on Doug Preston and the CBS show then I would suggest that there is a place for you at the Italian womans table.
Top Profile 

Offline Motorhead


Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:37 am

Posts: 31

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:14 am   Post subject:    

Brogan wrote:
Motorhead, if all of your knowlege and your opinion of this case is based on Doug Preston and the CBS show then I would suggest that there is a place for you at the Italian womans table.


It most certainly is not, but that is where I first learned of the case.

Is this all you guys do? Attack the person, not the argument? That's what's going on in this murder case because the evidence doesn't exist to convict beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Knock it off, stick to showing/proving it with evidence, not attack the people.
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:34 am   Post subject:    

Motorhead wrote:
Brogan wrote:
Motorhead, if all of your knowlege and your opinion of this case is based on Doug Preston and the CBS show then I would suggest that there is a place for you at the Italian womans table.


It most certainly is not, but that is where I first learned of the case.

Is this all you guys do? Attack the person, not the argument? That's what's going on in this murder case because the evidence doesn't exist to convict beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Knock it off, stick to showing/proving it with evidence, not attack the people.


I haven't seen any argument in Motorheads attacks. Not one. The case is much more complicated then he implies. For him, everything is simple. She is innocent. Basta. I think, the case is more complicated. I lean towards her being there when this thing happened, but I don't say I know exactly what happened.
Top Profile 

Offline Motorhead


Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:37 am

Posts: 31

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:10 pm   Post subject:    

Hungarian wrote:
Motorhead wrote:
Brogan wrote:
Motorhead, if all of your knowlege and your opinion of this case is based on Doug Preston and the CBS show then I would suggest that there is a place for you at the Italian womans table.


It most certainly is not, but that is where I first learned of the case.

Is this all you guys do? Attack the person, not the argument? That's what's going on in this murder case because the evidence doesn't exist to convict beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Knock it off, stick to showing/proving it with evidence, not attack the people.


I haven't seen any argument in Motorheads attacks. Not one. The case is much more complicated then he implies. For him, everything is simple. She is innocent. Basta. I think, the case is more complicated. I lean towards her being there when this thing happened, but I don't say I know exactly what happened.


I'm not attacking any person, however I've been attacked on a personal level for saying what I said. You've got it all backwards.

I'm stating that:

A) There is beyond reasonable doubt that Knox or her boyfriend were involved with the murder. That alone means a not guilty verdict.

B) There isn't enough, if any solid physical evidence

C) People are attempting to attack her character because of the lack of physical evidence

So please...stop saying I'm attacking people. I didn't start out calling people unintelligent because of what you think, that however was said to ME. Not to mention troll, etc.
Top Profile 

Offline BoneDawg


Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:58 pm

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:41 pm   Post subject: Is There Evidence?   

Motorhead,

I suggest, as was suggested to me, that you review the PPT presentations found in the "media" section of this forum. The footprints one in particular proves that, if anything, there was more than one person who did this. We know RG was there, and we know he knew MK and AK. We also, the knife was found with MK and AK's DNA in RS's house.

Matching footprints, matching DNA on a possible murder weapon, and no alibi ... Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

I find it hard to believe AK & Rs's stories, as they are so jumbled, and have already been proven by evidence to be wrong.

I beleive more concrete evidence is coming later in this trial.
Top Profile 

Offline Motorhead


Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:37 am

Posts: 31

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:44 pm   Post subject: Re: Is There Evidence?   

BoneDawg wrote:
Motorhead,

I suggest, as was suggested to me, that you review the PPT presentations found in the "media" section of this forum. The footprints one in particular proves that, if anything, there was more than one person who did this. We know RG was there, and we know he knew MK and AK. We also, the knife was found with MK and AK's DNA in RS's house.

Matching footprints, matching DNA on a possible murder weapon, and no alibi ... Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

I find it hard to believe AK & Rs's stories, as they are so jumbled, and have already been proven by evidence to be wrong.

I beleive more concrete evidence is coming later in this trial.


1. How do we know RG knew them?

2. "The" knife? No, it's not THE knife, it's A knife and that is not undeniable proof, sorry. If my wife was murdered with a knife from my house tomorrow, my DNA would be on that knife and that in no way proves I committed the crime.

3. Matching footprints? I haven't seen anything to prove they matched anyone, not to mention AK lived in that house, her footprints being there isn't strange. We also know the police botched evidence so how reliable is all this?

4. Their stories changed for numerous reasons, yes. Still not an undeniable indicator of guilt. Tough interrogations and allegations of being hit and mentally abused? Anyone will say anything as evidenced by US torture of terrorist suspects later proven innocent.
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:10 pm   Post subject:    

Motorhead wrote:
Hungarian wrote:
Motorhead wrote:
Brogan wrote:
Motorhead, if all of your knowlege and your opinion of this case is based on Doug Preston and the CBS show then I would suggest that there is a place for you at the Italian womans table.


It most certainly is not, but that is where I first learned of the case.

Is this all you guys do? Attack the person, not the argument? That's what's going on in this murder case because the evidence doesn't exist to convict beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Knock it off, stick to showing/proving it with evidence, not attack the people.


I haven't seen any argument in Motorheads attacks. Not one. The case is much more complicated then he implies. For him, everything is simple. She is innocent. Basta. I think, the case is more complicated. I lean towards her being there when this thing happened, but I don't say I know exactly what happened.


I'm not attacking any person, however I've been attacked on a personal level for saying what I said. You've got it all backwards.

Motorhead, no, you started with saying bull bull bull bull -- how do you explain that there isn't any fingerprint in the whole house of AK? -- why did she implicate Lumumba? and zillion other questions, you don't even touch in your mails -- only generalities -- the reasonable doubt thing was good enough for Mr Simpson -- it is not quite waterproof is it? and where are we yet from the end of this trial? more patience please -- you do seem to be a troll: someone, who is not listening, just repeating his already hardened agenda -- not even trying to convince anybody, just stating things -- for example, AK stood up in case of the vibrator, but never said a word to the shop-owner who saw her on the street early morning, or to the homeless guy, who saw her with Sollecito, in the night of the murder in a park... then, she was silent -- how can you explain that? although both witnesses prove that she lied --

I'm stating that:

A) There is beyond reasonable doubt that Knox or her boyfriend were involved with the murder. That alone means a not guilty verdict.

B) There isn't enough, if any solid physical evidence

C) People are attempting to attack her character because of the lack of physical evidence

So please...stop saying I'm attacking people. I didn't start out calling people unintelligent because of what you think, that however was said to ME. Not to mention troll, etc.
Top Profile 

Offline Motorhead


Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:37 am

Posts: 31

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:17 pm   Post subject:    

Hungarian wrote:
Motorhead, no, you started with saying bull bull bull bull -- how do you explain that there isn't any fingerprint in the whole house of AK? -- why did she implicate Lumumba? and zillion other questions, you don't even touch in your mails -- only generalities -- the reasonable doubt thing was good enough for Mr Simpson -- it is not quite waterproof is it? and where are we yet from the end of this trial? more patience please -- you do seem to be a troll: someone, who is not listening, just repeating his already hardened agenda -- not even trying to convince anybody, just stating things -- for example, AK stood up in case of the vibrator, but never said a word to the shop-owner who saw her on the street early morning, or to the homeless guy, who saw her with Sollecito, in the night of the murder in a park... then, she was silent -- how can you explain that? although both witnesses prove that she lied --


I said bull to the assertion that most murderers stay at the scene of the crime, that's not true in the least. Nor is it a personal insult.

The testimony of the homeless guy has changed more than their alibi, same with the shop owner. Yet you'll bring up AK's changing story, but not theirs. Even the woman who heard the supposed screams and running changed her story, and even originally said she heard it before Meredith could have died! Why is AK's changing story proof of complicity, yet the witnesses change what they see and hear numerous times and it's not mentioned/

The homeless witness, provided by Perugia Shock:

"Today he repeated that as soon as he arrives to the square, at 21:30-22:00, he starts to read a newspaper and while reading he's looking around and sees Amanda and Raffaele. The difference from his previous deposition is that now he sees them as soon as he starts reading, at 21:30-22:00, or just at 21:30, as it will emerge later.
They were Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, no doubt, he pointed at them in the courtroom.
So he sees them from the beginning, from 21:30, and he keeps seeing them, talking, arguing, going to the rail to watch below... until at least 23:30, when the discotheque buses start to leave.
It seems that he's been working hard to remember, but probably he forgot that Amanda and Raffaele had to be there only after 22:30-23:00.
He maybe thought that having seen the lovebirds only for a few minutes wasn't enough and in an effort to be credible he extended their presence to the whole period, providing them, in this way, an alibi for the crime. Or proving that his testimony was a fake."

Who knows why she implicated Lumumba? Stress, confusion, shock anything can come into play after finding out your friend was murdered and you're being questioned about it.

You say I have an agenda, yet so do you. Don't play high and mighty here.
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:32 pm   Post subject:    

essentially the homeless guy says the same thing -- it is bit blurred, but essentially he saw them -- they didn't say a word about it -- what about no fingerprints of Amanda in her house? what about a shopkeeper guy? I don't see how he changed his testimony -- he saw her, she said nothing about it -- she doesn't remember -- the Lumumba question is so easy to get rid of, is it? My problem is, that I have my doubts about AK guilt, but these general attacks don't help you convince anybody -- I am sorry -- and you used the "bull" adjective many more times in the beginnings -- you jumped into the waters here with bull bull bull -- and then you say, that you can't and don't watch, read the stuff, that has been -- I mean Kermit's powerpoints, etc -- put up here -- here are people who have very differentiated opinions about what could happen on that night -- but you don't have the patience to read Stewarthome or Bolint or others -- you come as a man convinced of her innocence -- everybody else should go to hell with his or her opinion, is prejudicial -- it is not true for this forum -- and read your own letters, you have three talking points that you keep repeating like a typical troll -- and I suppose you enjoy the attention you build up for yourself -- but your narrowminded attacks are contraproductive, beleive me --
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:38 pm   Post subject:    

Hungarian wrote:

Quote:
essentially the homeless guy says the same thing -- it is bit blurred, but essentially he saw them -- they didn't say a word about it -- what about no fingerprints of Amanda in her house? what about a shopkeeper guy? I don't see how he changed his testimony -- he saw her, she said nothing about it -- she doesn't remember -- the Lumumba question is so easy to get rid of, is it? My problem is, that I have my doubts about AK guilt, but these general attacks don't help you convince anybody -- I am sorry -- and you used the "bull" adjective many more times in the beginnings -- you jumped into the waters here with bull bull bull -- and then you say, that you can't and don't watch, read the stuff, that has been -- I mean Kermit's powerpoints, etc -- put up here -- here are people who have very differentiated opinions about what could happen on that night -- but you don't have the patience to read Stewarthome or Bolint or others -- you come as a man convinced of her innocence -- everybody else should go to hell with his or her opinion, is prejudicial -- it is not true for this forum -- and read your own letters, you have three talking points that you keep repeating like a typical troll -- and I suppose you enjoy the attention you build up for yourself -- but your narrowminded attacks are contraproductive, beleive me --


The troll is gone now, Hungarian. I'm sorry he wasted your time. I appreciate your effort to establish a dialogue, but it is impossible with this person. He wants to put a stop to all dialogue. He's what you might call a conversation stopper. I think it comes from a terrible need for attention. And that just bores the heck out of me.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BoneDawg


Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:58 pm

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:40 pm   Post subject: Re: Is There Evidence?   

1. How do we know RG knew them?
RG mentions in the available phone call from his friend (the one that lead the poilce ot know where he was) that he "knew both of those girls"

2. "The" knife? No, it's not THE knife, it's A knife and that is not undeniable proof, sorry. If my wife was murdered with a knife from my house tomorrow, my DNA would be on that knife and that in no way proves I committed the crime.
What if your wife was murdered with a knife that was later found at your daughter's boyfriend's house? Would you not think that he had something to do with it?

3. Matching footprints? I haven't seen anything to prove they matched anyone, not to mention AK lived in that house, her footprints being there isn't strange. We also know the police botched evidence so how reliable is all this?
Her footprints are in blood. Look at the "footprints PPT" and tell me if it doesn't at least slightly change your view.

4. Their stories changed for numerous reasons, yes. Still not an undeniable indicator of guilt. Tough interrogations and allegations of being hit and mentally abused? Anyone will say anything as evidenced by US torture of terrorist suspects later proven innocent.
No credible alibi. Why change your story if your story is true?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:40 pm   Post subject: LOCKING THREAD   

I am now locking this thread. Too many open threads make the forum confusing for visitors and place more demands on Moderators who are already spread rather thinly, to monitor them. If you believe any points raised in this topic to be worthy of further discussion, please debate them in the Main Discussion Thread in The Murder of Meredith Kercher forum.

Thank You

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 1 [ 18 posts ]


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 


28,914,480 Views