Amanda Knox retrial begins

DexyDrain

Amazingfun wrote: »

You seem to contradict yourself in a few places. First it's "impossible" that this flimsy piece of supposed evidence can be contaminated, and then in the next sentence it's "extremely improbable". Which means it's possible.

They relate to two different possibilities/claims:

1. They claimed in court it may have been contaminated in the lab because the machine had tested items from the case six days earlier. The machine had been used and completely flushed out many times in between so lab contamination is impossible as an explanation.

2. It is extremely improbable that the knife was contaminated before it got to the lab, but not impossible. A different team searched Sollecito's apartment on a different day from searches at the cottage, they also put on protective clothing before entering. The knife was collected and sent to the police station where it was sent on to the office in Rome. The chain of evidence was never broken, but it would not be possible to entirely exclude a possible contamination along this chain. It is extremely improbable that this happened as Meredith's DNA was not found on any other item collected or sent at this time.

Amazingfun

Dexy claims Guede couldn't break in that window easily?
Not according to this guy:

How Rudy Guede Broke In

by AMANDA posted on DECEMBER 12, 2013

This looks to be part of a documentary on the case, where two journalists request the opinion and demonstration by a young climbing expert of how Rudy Guede could have broken into Meredith’s and my apartment the night of the murder. Thank you to these journalists and this young climber for clarifying the issue.

Video: Young Man Demonstrates Climb Up to Window.

For a more detailed analysis on how the break-in took place, please see Ron Hendry’s article, A Detailed Look at the Physical Evidence Regarding the Break-In at Injustice in Perugia.
Thank you, Mr. Hendry.

http://www.amandaknox.com/2013/12/12/how-he-broke-in/

Amazingfun

That Ron Hendry article is a must read regarding Guede's breaking in to the Kercher/Knox residence:

A Detailed Look at the Physical Evidence Regarding the Break-In

By Ron Hendry

In order to convict Amanda and Raffaele, the Prosecution relied upon a convoluted theory to connect Amanda and Raffaele with Rudy in the commission of the murder. This convoluted theory hinged upon being able to almost summarily dismiss the broken and open window in Filomena Romanelli’s room as a staging of a break-in instead of an actual break-in by a known burglar by the name of Rudy Guede.
A host of rationales and other supposed factors and witness observations have been put forth by the prosecution to offhandedly promote what happened to Filomena’s room and her window as being a staged event. These flimsy rationales for a staged break-in have also been promoted by Judges in their justification of a wide range of opinions adverse to Amanda and Raffaele.

The early posturing of the break-in as a staged situation without a rigorous investigation and sound factual evidence to back it up resulted in the murder investigation being turned upside down from the beginning. The threshold for proving it was other than a burglary break-in as it outwardly appeared should have been very high. Instead the threshold for proving it was a burglary break-in was set very high and seriously handicapped by the failure of the police to perform due diligence in promptly investigating and fully documenting the inside and outside areas as a break-in.

Simply put, if Rudy Guede had gained entrance to the cottage through Filomena Romanelli’s room, then Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent of any involvement. Additionally they should never have been considered suspects and would never have been subjected to all they have endured for almost the past three years.

This four part analysis is intended to provide a rigorous examination of the physical evidence associated with the found condition of Filomena Romanelli’s room and window.

Part One: How was Filomena’s window broken? (this page)

Part Two: Did Rudy Guede gain entrance to the cottage through Filomena Romanelli’s window?

Part Three: The Break-In – A discussion of early observations that raised suspicions of staging

Part four: A step by step reconstruction of how Rudy Guede gained entrance to the cottage

Read it here:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry

---

2.html

sparkle109

This case is just so strange.. the lack of physical evidence linking her to it is pretty convincing, considering the state of the crime scene, but her behaviour was just so off!

Amazingfun

sparkle109 wrote: »

This case is just so strange.. the lack of physical evidence linking her to it is pretty convincing, considering the state of the crime scene, but her behaviour was just so off!

Agreed.

But that just makes her weird, not a killer.

MonaPizza

Look, if you have the audacity to question the official line on this and express doubt about evidence, not to mention the motives or competence of the authorities regarding this, or any other issue, then you're a goddamn tin-foil hat wearing CTer, ok?

END OF!

DexyDrain

Amazingfun wrote: »

Dexy claims Guede couldn't break in that window easily?
Not according to this guy:



http://www.amandaknox.com/2013/12/12/how-he-broke-in/

OK. Let's put aside the fact that they have paid an experienced rock climber to say that anyone could do what he did (why not just get someone else to do it?).

Watch carefully, 38-39 seconds, he is leaning dead flat against an area where a large prominent nail had remained in place sticking out several inches yet it was untouched!

41 seconds: 'let's zoom out and change angle while he uses the bars that were not there at the time of the murder to make the final climb'. Seriously?

Then around 1:30 he demonstrates how easily he can open the shutters, except these are new shutters that do not rub against the window sill and were not 'very hard to open' like the witnesses at the trial made clear.


But there are major problems not addressed at all:
There was undisturbed shards of broken glass on both sides of the window sill. None fell to the ground during this operation.
The ground was muddy and wet and he would have to climb twice, once to open shutters so glass could be broken, no shoe prints or scuffs were on the wall.
Glass fell on top of the 'ransacked' clothes, so he must have gone in the front door then decided after trashing the room it would be more fun to go back out and climb in the most exposed window on the house?

mitosis

Amazingfun wrote: »

Dexy claims Guede couldn't break in that window easily?
Not according to this guy:



http://www.amandaknox.com/2013/12/12/how-he-broke-in/

Ah no. You can't seriously be using amandaknox.com as a source of reliable information to refute a court decision. Nor should injusticeinperugia be considered a reliable source. Both only provide snippets of evidence - the bits it suits them to report.

I get that you really really want her to be innocent (though I don't know why) but unless you have expertise in the area and access to the court during the trial all you have is an opinion. Just like me. And the opinion is formed by the media fuelled by the convicted - not exactly unbiased.

The media campaign reminds me so much of the Madeline McCann campaign and the Diana of Wales murder theory.

Muise...

MonaPizza wrote: »

Look, if you have the audacity to question the official line on this and express doubt about evidence, not to mention the motives or competence of the authorities regarding this, or any other issue, then you're a goddamn tin-foil hat wearing CTer, ok?

END OF!

Pretty much.

Though it's not so much audacity as recreational outrage based on a PR campaign.

BQQ

Amazingfun wrote: »

That Ron Hendry article is a must read regarding Guede's breaking in to the Kercher/Knox residence:

There's an awful lot of straw clutching in that.
He skillfully climbs the wall without leaving a trace or disturbing any glass on the outer windowsill.
The rock manages to ransack the room and he then climbs up and throws a few shards of glass onto Filomena's clothes :pac:


I would suggest that anyone who read that should also read this:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Staged_Burglary#Did_Amanda_Knox_and_Raffaele_Sollecito_Attempt_to_Divert_Attention_from_Themselves.3F

Amazingfun

mitosis wrote: »

Ah no. You can't seriously be using amandaknox.com as a source of reliable information to refute a court decision. Nor should injusticeinperugia be considered a reliable source. Both only provide snippets of evidence - the bits it suits them to report.

I get that you really really want her to be innocent (though I don't know why) but unless you have expertise in the area and access to the court during the trial all you have is an opinion. Just like me. And the opinion is formed by the media fuelled by the convicted - not exactly unbiased.

The media campaign reminds me so much of the Madeline McCann campaign and the Diana of Wales murder theory.

What did any of that blather have to do with the video? It showed how easy it was for Guede to get in the window, he was the perfect size and in good health, no problem for him at all.

And what's with the lecture re: opinion?
When did I or anyone else here claim they had anything but?

And she is innocent, Guede is the rapist and murderer, that much is clear.
He had the history of break-ins and turd-leaving, Amanda and Raffaele had no such backstory at all. It is still the most ludicrous scenario imaginable to try and pin this on those two.
Hopefully we'll see justice done soon, and watch them both walk free. It's just a pity Guede will be getting out waaaay before he ought to.

mitosis

Amazingfun wrote: »

What did any of that blather have to do with the video? It showed how easy it was for Guede to get in the window, he was the perfect size and in good health, no problem for him at all.

And what's with the lecture re: opinion?
When did I or anyone else here claim they had anything but?

And she is innocent, Guede is the rapist and murderer, that much is clear.
He had the history of break-ins and turd-leaving, Amanda and Raffaele had no such backstory at all. It is still the most ludicrous scenario imaginable to try and pin this on those two.
Hopefully we'll see justice done soon, and watch them both walk free. It's just a pity Guede will be getting out waaaay before he ought to.

But she is not, according to a court and jury.

Can you demonstrate Guede's history of break-ins etc? Because I failed to find anything outside of blogs and Knox sites. Elsewhere at the time of Meredith's murder, Rudy Guede had no known arrest record, no criminal history,

I agree he should not be out soon, but wonder how the DNA evidence is OK to convict him but for Knox it must have been contamination.

Amazingfun

mitosis wrote: »

But she is not, according to a court and jury.
.

This amuses me to no end, you are out of touch with what happens more often than you imagine, and with what has certainly happened in this case: they got it wrong.

Take this guy for example (but there are plenty more, as I believe I've told you before):

TACOMA — A federal court jury in Tacoma has awarded $9 million to a former Vancouver police officer who was wrongfully convicted of sexually abusing his children in the 1980s and spent nearly 20 years in prison.

Clyde Ray Spencer had alleged false imprisonment and malicious prosecution in the lawsuit he filed against Clark County. The Columbian reports that jurors returned their verdict Monday.

http://www.oregonlive.com/clark-county/index.ssf/2014/02/wrongly_convicted_vancouver_co.html

Amazingfun

mitosis wrote: »

Can you demonstrate Guede's history of break-ins etc? Because I failed to find anything outside of blogs and Knox sites. Elsewhere at the time of Meredith's murder, Rudy Guede had no known arrest record, no criminal history,

I agree he should not be out soon, but wonder how the DNA evidence is OK to convict him but for Knox it must have been contamination.

Will CNN do for you? Now I am sure Nina Burleigh, given that she too thinks Amanda is innocent, will be dismissed for whatever reason :rolleyes:

I spent two years researching and writing a book about the Knox case, living in Perugia, attending the trial, interviewing every lawyer involved in the case, reviewing thousands of pages of police documents and court transcripts, interviewing forensic police, coroners, the principles of the case, their family members and associates.

The latest Italian proceeding did not involve any new evidence and, sadly, didn't shed any new light on the crime. There is still no proof that Amanda Knox was in the bedroom where someone stabbed Meredith Kercher. The DNA and fingerprint evidence is still entirely linked to a man named Rudy Guede, who is serving a 16-year jail sentence for the murder -- shortened thanks to testimony that put Amanda Knox on the crime scene.

Prosecutors' reluctance to deeply investigate Guede is understandable; they don't want to know. But Guede may be the most interesting character in the story. Born in Ivory Coast, brought to Italy at age 5, he is more Italian than most immigrants, but, like other immigrants, he is legally just a guest in the homogeneous country, not a citizen, required to report to the authorities annually (which was why his fingerprints were on file in Perugia).

In the months before the Kercher murder, Guede was broke and showing signs of mental illness, and was involved in three and possibly more home invasions, according to police reports, trial testimony and interviews with victims.

His apparent modus operandi was to break into what he thought were empty houses and make himself at home. A few weeks before the Kercher murder, someone broke into a Perugia law office through a second floor window, according to trial testimony from the lawyer who practiced there, turned up the heat, rearranged small trinkets, drank an orange soda from the refrigerator and appeared to have slept on the couch before making off with a laptop.

You can read it all here, I just selected a few pertinent paragraphs.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/31/opinion/burleigh-amanda-knox-verdict/

mitosis

Amazingfun wrote: »

Will CNN do for you? Now I am sure Nina Burleigh, given that she too thinks Amanda is innocent, will be dismissed for whatever reason :rolleyes:



You can read it all here, I just selected a few pertinent paragraphs.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/31/opinion/burleigh-amanda-knox-verdict/

In fairness that's also an opinion piece. It also fails to support its assertions. But whatever, that Rudy is guilty doesn't mean he is alone in being so.

I fail to see what a trial in Oregon has to do with anything. I could cite OJ Simpson as a case for the opposite.

Amazingfun

mitosis wrote: »

I fail to see what a trial in Oregon has to do with anything. I could cite OJ Simpson as a case for the opposite.[/B]

Pick a country and find wrongfully convicted persons. This case was in my newsfeed at that moment so I linked it.
And there was no need to cite OJ (lol), as I never based my opinion on the (current) verdict

****This just in:

Raffaele Sollecito has told Sky News it is "absurd" the only man currently behind bars for killing Meredith Kercher will be allowed to leave jail temporarily this year.

Under Italian law, Rudy Guede, the drug dealer sentenced to 16 years in prison after his DNA was found on the British student's semi-naked body, already qualifies for day release from prison.

His lawyer, Walter Biscotti, confirmed he will soon be able to work outside jail.

Rudy Guede, coming soon to murder another innocent, I'm sure. :mad:

DexyDrain

Amazingfun wrote: »

What did any of that blather have to do with the video? It showed how easy it was for Guede to get in the window, he was the perfect size and in good health, no problem for him at all.

And what's with the lecture re: opinion?
When did I or anyone else here claim they had anything but?

And she is innocent, Guede is the rapist and murderer, that much is clear.
He had the history of break-ins and turd-leaving, Amanda and Raffaele had no such backstory at all. It is still the most ludicrous scenario imaginable to try and pin this on those two.
Hopefully we'll see justice done soon, and watch them both walk free. It's just a pity Guede will be getting out waaaay before he ought to.

Who was the female that took part in the murder then? A woman's shoe print, of a size compatible with Knox, was found in blood on the pillow case in the room that had been locked after the murder. Who do you think this woman was, who just happened to have the same size shoe as Knox and was in the room during the killing?


MC = Comodi, Prosecutor
PB = Pietro Boemia Dactyloscopist with 30 years' experience. Has identified between 5,000 and 10,000 individuals using footprints.



PB:
Is this the shoe?



MC:


Yes.



PB:


It was on the pillow slip.





MC:
And so what type of investigation did you then carry out on this print?


PB:
Investigations at shoe shops and cobblers.


MC:
Very good, and what did you find?


PB:
I found, let’s say, a sort of compatibility as regards the width of the heel, also examining these soles, I was able to… it’s in any case a print from a woman’s shoe.


MC:
Woman’s?


PB:
Woman’s, yes, and then let’s say that the size could be between 36 and 38.


MC:
Can you show us the shoe that you took as a comparison? Which though does not mean that in your opinion…; I’ll do it after the question.


PB:
This is an “ASICS” size 6.5, which would be equivalent to a 37.5.



MC:
Why did you choose this specific shoe?


PB:
Because of the shape of the heel, I went looking for typologies of shoes that would have had more or less the same shape of sole and the elements that make it up.

................

MC:
What in substance had you wanted to say with this comparison? What you have said before and that therefore it is a man’s shoe?


PB:
Absolutely not.


MC:
And why absolutely not?


PB:
Because the heel is not wide enough in short, let’s say that male footwear is at least, let’s say, 6 centimetres wide in short.


http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Pietro_Boemia%27s_Testimony_%28English%29

Amazingfun

who knows? It could be a mistake, it could be someone else's, it could be that psycho/weirdo Guede stuck a shoe on his hand played "let's make prints". It certainly doesn't mean she killed her, not by a long shot.

DexyDrain

Amazingfun wrote: »

who knows? It could be a mistake, it could be someone else's, it could be that psycho/weirdo Guede stuck a shoe on his hand played "let's make prints". It certainly doesn't mean she killed her, not by a long shot.

It proves it was not a lone wolf killing.

Each piece of evidence does not on its own prove guilt, when they all add together however they leave very little scope for doubt.

Amazingfun

JUDGE WHO SENTENCED KNOX, SOLLECITO UNDER FIRE FOR REMARKS

One thing the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have always lacked is a verifiable motive for the murder of Knox's British roommate. So police and prosecutors have thrown handfuls of motives against various courtroom walls in the hopes that one sticks. It has become a prosecutor's user manual for creative but baseless arguments. So the past motives for the crime are: it was a sex-game gone bad; it was a ritual killing; it was a robbery; it was mean girls; it was because Amanda Knox is a "she-devil."

Quite unexpectedly, Judge Nencini has added yet another motive: a boys night out. Over the course of 30 meetings, Judge Nencini said that he and the jury had developed "a line of reasoning." Their "reasoning" is that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito "had nothing to do" the night of November 1, 2007 in Perugia. And the idea to kill Meredith Kercher, who was stabbed multiple times, "was born in an evening with the guys" according to Nencini. The Judge did tell the reporters that he was "aware" that this was "most controversial." Nencini also conceded he has no idea what actually happened the night Meredith Kercher was killed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/italian-judge-who-sentenced-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-under-fire-for-remarks/


Funny thing is, I've spent more time reading through that site linked by Dexy and others, and I am beginning to see how the American based media has indeed left out a lot of details, especially the blood evidence, etc, implicating both Knox and Sollecito.
I am not as sure as I was at all now about their innocence, but that doesn't take away from the ongoing clown show this (these) trial(s) have been.

Emilyjane14

How can two innocent people be convicted of murder twice on the same crime by different judges?

If Knox is not extradited, would Sollecito avoid jail too?

Is it very likely that the Supreme Court will clear them?

It has to be one of the most confusing, complicated cases ever. It is so hard to see what are the actual facts and what is completely untrue.


It is extremely difficult to know whether they are innocent or guilty


It must be so awful for people who are innocent and end up serving life sentences. Things could not be worse.

Amazingfun

Knifeman: Rudy Hermann Guede


He is the only one currently behind bars for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher – but jail is turning into an education for knifeman Rudy Guede.

The 27-year-old has secretly been given permission to leave his cell on the sex offenders’ wing of a top security Italian jail – so he can pursue his studies for a history degree.

But the fact that he is now able to enjoy day release to visit his tutor in a nearby town has provoked outrage.

One friend of Meredith’s family said: “Rudy Guede being allowed out of prison to study like this is a sick joke.

"Poor Meredith was in Perugia to study at university and this man was convicted of killing her.

“She is dead and here he is now studying history and could even go to the same university.”

Last month American Amanda Knox and her ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were re-convicted of the murder of 21-year-old Meredith who was knifed to death in October 2007.

Guede was tried separately in 2008 and received a 30-year sentence, later reduced to 16 years on appeal.

His DNA was found on Meredith’s body.

Guede’s lawyer Walter Biscotti confirmed that the killer was entitled to partial freedom.

Asked whether he was aware of the furious reaction to the news, he shrugged: “If the English and Meredith’s family are upset about this I don’t know what to say… it’s the law.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/rudy-guede-meredith-kercher-killer-3132708#ixzz2t4Ijr8b7
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

Holsten

So what? The man shouldn't able to get an education?

sawdoubters

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page

Amazingfun

Holsten wrote: »

So what? The man shouldn't able to get an education?

No actually, I'd rather he be executed.

Oh well, we can all dream.

Paully D

Any catch the BBC Three documentary just now on this subject?

Also, if anyone is looking for an impartial view I couldn't recommend the book 'Death in Perugia' by John Follain highly enough. A very enlightening read.

Merkin

Paully D wrote: »

Any catch the BBC Three documentary just now on this subject?

Also, if anyone is looking for an impartial view I couldn't recommend the book 'Death in Perugia' by John Follain highly enough. A very enlightening read.

Have recorded it and have the book upstairs on my to read pile. The subject fascinates me.

bogwalrus

Yeah just watched BBC doc. I think the blood footprints are pretty strong evidence Amanda and sollecito did the murder or took part in some way. The other DNA evidence like bra clasp and the knife just add up to them being some way involved that night. I think any judge that looks at the whole evidence would have to link them in some way to the night.

omega666

Hmm, I guess nobody except the three in question knows what really happened. I think knox and the ex boyfriend Def are hiding something. Whether they actually killed her or not they seem to know more than they are letting on.

.jacksparrow.

Creeps me out tbh.