Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #7

[otto]

Is it now being suggested that AK was the one the made the arrest, kept him in jail, and would not allow him to re-open his business for months?

I must have missed the post where some unnamed person suggested that Amanda arrested Patrick kept him in jail. Patrick was arrested solely based on Amanda's false accusations. As a result he was jailed for two weeks and his business was closed. Even though Amanda and Edda both knew that Patrick was not involved in the murder, they both kept this information from police and prosecutors. I have not heard that Patrick has been able to re-open La Chic or re-establish his business. Amanda severely interfered with Patrick's life. That cannot be refuted ... and it is inappropriate to suggest that because Amanda did not put the cuffs on him and haul him to jail; that the "adults" did it, so Knox had nothing to do with it.

 

[otto]

Kemo,

1. The inappropriate/odd things are things described 2nd and 3rd and 4th hand. How do you know you're getting accurate info and full context? (hint: you can't know that). You might be reading a rumor and basing your opinion on something not quite accurate. Are you okay with doing that? I'm not okay basing my opinions on something UNcorroborated, that's for sure.

2. Amanda may very well be innocent, that's true. Although apparently that doesn't matter either because there are those who seem to hate her with the heat of a thousand suns, so even if she was 100% innocent of this crime, they'd still deign to see her in prison because of their feelings. At the very least, one can say she is legally "not guilty," because the evidence doesn't take one over the barrier of 'reasonable doubt' to make her 'guilty.' (Yes I realize an Italian jury thought otherwise).

3. You realize that statements made on this forum have been quite inaccurate and in some cases twisted into something altogether false, right? The 'best' evidence that anyone can point to is what they find to be disingenuous or vague remarks supposedly made by AK or RS, based on....ummm....some source, but certainly not from any verifiable and corroborated source. Rumors on top of rumors. This forum (as nice as it is) is not a font of case accuracy, nor should be construed as such. Some things are correct. Some...not so much.

4. So you were questioned by a cop in your main language in your own domicile. Excellent. How do you think it might have gone had you been in a different country, being questioned in a language not your own? Exactly the same? Possibly different?

Have you not read the transcripts and discovered that Amanda so often 'doesn't remember'? Have you not encoutered the lies Amanda told? Have you based your understanding of the case on blogs and forum comments?

Can we give some credit and assume that many people that comment on this case have actually done some research?

 

[miley]

My posts contradict one another? And in between the two sentences you pasted, I asked for information about the blood testing, then researched the Judge's report, and then posted about the blood analysis admitting my mistake. I then posted that the luminoled prints were tested for blood, and the conclusion of the court was that the print that matched Amanda's bare footprint was made in blood (contrary to the suggestion that the prints were tested for blood and the conclusion was that it was not blood) outside of Meredith's bedroom.

The truth was indeed out that the substance was tested using an analysis that tested for low number count DNA. The conclusion was that although the DNA was low, it was present and indicated a mixture of Amanda's DNA and Meredith's blood in Filomina's bedroom. Not all of the luminol prints indicated a mix with DNA, or suggested haematic substance, but some did. The conclusion was that the footprint in the hallway, that matched Amanda's footprint, was made with haematic substance, and that the footprint in the bathroom that matched Raffaele's print was also made with blood.

It's actually somewhat revealing that you selected two sentences I posted and omitted the comments in between ... thus giving the impression that I had unknowingly contradicted myself. It appears to be a case of selectively using information to present something different than what is.

(are you now claiming you didn't know about the tetramethylbenzidine test )

You and Allusunz were discussing the footprints, what the final results were and whether or not Stephanoni lied.

I repeated Allisunz points and added the fact that Stephanoni tried to cover up the truth by withholding the information from the defense. (I don't mind repeating myself) Stephanoni made everyone think the prints had Never been tested when they actually Had been tested.

Comodi said there were bloody footprints made by Knox and Sollecito on the floor and then claimed the defense was trying to pass it off as luminol reacting to juice or rust and tells the jury to decide for themselves knowing full well the prints had tested negative for blood yet going along with Stefanoni's claim they were never tested.

It does appear to be a case of selectively using information to present something different than what is.

How did she get blood on the bottom of her bare foot?

through deception

 

[OldSteve]

I must have missed the post where some unnamed person suggested that Amanda arrested Patrick kept him in jail. Patrick was arrested solely based on Amanda's false accusations. As a result he was jailed for two weeks and his business was closed. Even though Amanda and Edda both knew that Patrick was not involved in the murder, they both kept this information from police and prosecutors. I have not heard that Patrick has been able to re-open La Chic or re-establish his business. Amanda severely interfered with Patrick's life. That cannot be refuted ... and it is inappropriate to suggest that because Amanda did not put the cuffs on him and haul him to jail; that the "adults" did it, so Knox had nothing to do with it.

BBM
Well said! I wondered why Amanda did what she did to Patrick - it seemed (again, IMO watching the movie) that Patrick looked to Meredith when she made the drink when she first took Amanda to La Chic to get a job.

Amanda (in the movie) seemed upset that Meredith got Patrick's attention.. So could that have been her motive to get back at Patrick? This was the first of two scenes in which there was tension between Amanda and Meredith - the second was when Merdith was upset with how Amanda wasn't doing her share of housekeeping at the cottage, and of Amanda's lifestyle in general...

 

[dgfred]

Have you not read the transcripts and discovered that Amanda so often 'doesn't remember'? Have you not encoutered the lies Amanda told? Have you based your understanding of the case on blogs and forum comments?

Can we give some credit and assume that many people that comment on this case have actually done some research?

What? You expect an admittance of encountering lies and misinformation from the innocent-side... don't hold your breath. Much easier to gloss over, twist, ignore or deny... or just claim it is AK being AK.

 

[miley]

Miley, in response to your comment a couple of days back stating that Barbie said that police leaked diaries to the media, or that the prosecutor made a deal with Rudy:

Finally had a few moments to watch the documentary that followed the film. The diaries written by Knox were confiscated by police, but Barbie Nadeau does not say that police leaked those documents to the media. There is no information about who had access to those diaries.

Barbie also does not say that prosecutors made a deal with Rudy and therefore his sentence was reduced, or that he gave false evidence as part of the deal. What Barbie said was, in the context of opting for the fast-track trial, Rudy made a deal. That is, he made a deal "because that's the way the Italian law works."

She says police leaked the documents to the media &
She clearly says Rudy made a deal
Did anyone else happen to see the documentary?

 

[miley]

There is so much WRONG with the behavior of Amanda and Raffaele but you "Friends of Amanda" who seem to think that vague, imprecise answers are "normal" for young people today, have apparently never been involved in a murder investigation. Having a friend brutally murdered is deadly serious business. If the witness somehow doesn’t pick up that "vive", the investigator will convey it very clearly. It is possible that Amanda could care less about Meredith's death and saw it all as a chance to have something "real life" to write about, but she would certainly "catch on" to the fact that she was expected to answer a bunch of very specific questions as accurately as possible before she could go back to savoring all of the excitement and attention. The fact that she failed to do just this is what made her a suspect in the first place.

kemo, didn't you say you would follow the case as though there were no police or prosecutorial misconduct until there was information proving otherwise

 

[SleuthyGal]

Can we give some credit and assume that many people that comment on this case have actually done some research?

Then there's no excuse for misstating facts, misstating statements, and twisting words to mean things they simply don't mean.

I mean, there's no innocent excuse.

I see lots of reasons why someone might do such a thing, but I do not see an innocent reason why someone who has done research, and/or read court transcripts would mislead and misstate things (unless they have a reading comprehension problem and simply do not understand the written word).

 

[dgfred]

Then there's no excuse for misstating facts, misstating statements, and twisting words to mean things they simply don't mean.

I mean, there's no innocent excuse.

I see lots of reasons why someone might do such a thing, but I do not see an innocent reason why someone who has done research, and/or read court transcripts would mislead and misstate things (unless they have a reading comprehension problem and simply do not understand the written word).

Could you give some evidence (besides by AK) that shows anyone here misstating or twisting words?

Apply that SAME logic to AK's statements and answers regarding her guilt afterwards too. "there is no innocent excuse" ... right about that!

 

[otto]

(are you now claiming you didn't know about the tetramethylbenzidine test )

You and Allusunz were discussing the footprints, what the final results were and whether or not Stephanoni lied.

I repeated Allisunz points and added the fact that Stephanoni tried to cover up the truth by withholding the information from the defense. (I don't mind repeating myself) Stephanoni made everyone think the prints had Never been tested when they actually Had been tested.

Comodi said there were bloody footprints made by Knox and Sollecito on the floor and then claimed the defense was trying to pass it off as luminol reacting to juice or rust and tells the jury to decide for themselves knowing full well the prints had tested negative for blood yet going along with Stefanoni's claim they were never tested.

It does appear to be a case of selectively using information to present something different than what is.


through deception

Just stop. Don't put words in my mouth. Don't selective reconstruct my comments to twist my words. This discussion is about the murder of Meredith Kercher. Please take other remarks elsewhere.

 

[otto]

BBM
Well said! I wondered why Amanda did what she did to Patrick - it seemed (again, IMO watching the movie) that Patrick looked to Meredith when she made the drink when she first took Amanda to La Chic to get a job.

Amanda (in the movie) seemed upset that Meredith got Patrick's attention.. So could that have been her motive to get back at Patrick? This was the first of two scenes in which there was tension between Amanda and Meredith - the second was when Merdith was upset with how Amanda wasn't doing her share of housekeeping at the cottage, and of Amanda's lifestyle in general...

Although the movie includes many facts (and a few errors), it is also combines a few points to fit them into the movie time slot. Amanda was referred for the job at La Chic through her roommate Laura. Amanda was reprimanded by Patrick for flirting with customers and not doing her job. After Amanda was working at La Chic, Meredith was there and mentioned the mojitos. It is true that Patrick offered Meredith a job as bartender. It is also true that although Amanda was hired as a server, she was also sent out to the street to hand out flyers.

Meredith and Amanda were from different worlds. Meredith was British, so studying in Europe was no different than studying in England ... it wasn't like another world, but instead a familiar world. Furthermore, her sister is fluent in Italian and may too have had experience in Italy. Amanda seemed to view Italy as some kind of backwards, medieval town where anything goes. Amanda did seem to approach Europe as an opportunity to cut loose, where rules are for other people, and where laws are meant to be ignored. Comments from Meredith's friends suggest that she was not impressed with Amanda, and wasn't happy about the fact that she did not contribute to keeping their living space clean. It is believed that there was a growing antagonism between the two, and this can be seen in the fact that Amanda phoned Meredith several times on Halloween, expecting to be invited to attend parties with Meredith and her friends, but Meredith did not invite her. Amanda and Raffaele were not invited to any parties on Halloween and did nothing.

 

[dgfred]

That's just pitiful SG. I'll just skip over the bull from now on.

 

[otto]

Then there's no excuse for misstating facts, misstating statements, and twisting words to mean things they simply don't mean.

I mean, there's no innocent excuse.

I see lots of reasons why someone might do such a thing, but I do not see an innocent reason why someone who has done research, and/or read court transcripts would mislead and misstate things (unless they have a reading comprehension problem and simply do not understand the written word).

Quite true. There was absolutely no excuse for Amanda to misstate facts or blatantly lie to police. I also do not see an innocent reason why Amanda would mislead and misstate things ... unless she has a mental problem or is a murderer.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Of course it's pitiful. I agree.

When someone makes misstatements and someone else has to come along and then post the accurate info, it is indeed pitiful. You nailed it!

I'm sorry you don't like the examples, but you did ask me for examples specifically from this forum! And there are many.

 

[dgfred]

Are you just left with trolling now?

Your examples are pitiful. Nobody twisted or deflected... except for the innocent side. :seeya:

 

[SleuthyGal]

fred,

I think it's time to step off.

Asking for examples, being given examples of exactly what you ask for, and then calling the behavior of giving you exactly what you ask for as 'trolling' is not conducive to anything on this or any discussion.

Name calling is used when there's simply no defense of merit. It is a form of the weakest exchange. It's a technique employed much too often. It tells me all I need to know about the person utilizing it. It also affirms the strength of the examples.

 

[Nova]

All the information, including court transcripts regarding the call, has already been posted on this thread.

Fine. I understand that you've lost patience with my questions. Who could blame you?

Maybe you'd like to share why you think that phone call from AK to EM matters...

There is this great body of testimony re AK's behavior, all of it skewed to make her look bad. So besides that fact that to some, EVERYTHING AK DID was evidence of murder, what is the problem with her calling her mother at an inconvenient hour?

 

[Nova]

Oh for Pete's sake, you guys, can I not just answer someone's question without some admonishment?

In any case, guess what? There's a new poll thread in this section It's the "Do You Think Amanda Knox Is Guilty?" poll. It's started by the poster that trillian wondered about regarding their post, and I was directing her to where she could find that information.

I don't keep track of who posts and reads which threads and apologize for not being more specific earlier about what thread I was talking about.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129425

I found it later. Sorry 'bout that.

I didn't think I was admonishing you, just pointing out that most of us (myself included) have a vested interest in trusting LE. There are social classes where that is not the case (OT: which is why the O.J. Simpson verdict was so shocking to some), but most of us who post here basically trust the police and have decent experiences with them.

Despite that, however, the poll numbers are pretty even.

 

[Nova]

Interesting enough one of the first calls made by both Filomenia and Laura were to lawyers

Smart girls!

 

[Nova]

(talking in a prison visit) apparently, the police claim Mellas said "But this was before anything happened except for the fact that the house was..."
it ends there and the police do not provide the rest of the conversation

I've never seen a link

I can understand that AK's mother was trying to get a handle on everything that happened the day MK's body was discovered. Hell, I'm still trying to sort it all out!

So she asked AK about the call.

What I have yet to see is any reason to believe that call was suspicious.As browneyegirl posted above, college kids keep odd hours and aren't always sensitive to time differences. My niece--who is an absolutely super kid--just started college in Hawaii. Her mother lives in Indiana. When my niece was having trouble with a jealous boyfriend, she often called her mother at 2 or 3 a.m., because that was when she (my niece) had time to call. Kids/young adults do things like that. It doesn't make them killers.