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

[Nova]

Filomina and Laura were not "college kids". They were two women, employed in law firms, who had two rooms that they were prepared to rent out. Meredith took one room and Amanda took the other room. I highly doubt that they were okay with people coming and going at all hours of the day and night.

Although it may be hard to remember how things were prior to the use of DNA (which happened in the early 1990s), people have been justifiably convicted of crimes they committed for a very long time without relying on DNA. In this case, we have a prosecution and conviction that is solidly based on a combination of circumstantial and forensic evidence.

The fact that Raffaele, after learning about Meredith's DNA on the knife, wrote in his diary that the DNA got there because he nicked her with a knife when she had dinner at his house, falls into the circumstantial evidence category. What is the explanation for this? It appears that he was offering an explanation for the DNA ... a lie to explain this DNA. That is problematic. This is not the only instance of circumstantial evidence, but one piece in the puzzle. There are many more instances such as the fact that whoever did this used a key to enter the cottage, then staged a break in. Who could have done that? The list goes on and on. Challenging the DNA on the knife by suggesting that it is a result of contamination is not an argument based on evidence, it is a "what if" scenario. What if the DNA on the knife was a result of contamination? There's nothing to support that, but what if. What if Raffaele's DNA flew off the cigarette butt in the kitchen and landed on the bra clasp in a locked bedroom? There is nothing to support that, but what if it happened? What if there was no DNA evidence, and police had to solve the murder based on crime analysis? Would the same three people have been convicted? Most likely Amanda and Raffaele would still have been convicted ... but the only evidence against Rudy is the DNA evidence, so perhaps he would have gotten away with it.

When a piece of evidence is left uncollected for more than a month, then passed around and put back on the floor to be photographed, the possibility of contamination is more than a game of "What if?" It's the most likely explanation.

When a foot-long, non-collapsible knife--one totally unsuited for carrying around town--is magically plucked from a kitchen drawer only to reveal such an infinitesimal amount of the victim's DNA that accepted protocols don't recognize it, then contamination or out-and-out forensic incompetence become the most likely explanations.

Yes, it's unfortunate that RS invented a story to account for MK's DNA on the knife. But let's walk in his shoes for a minute: he is being told by supposed experts that the DNA is there and undeniable. (And given police SOP, he's probably being told, "If you can just explain this, we can clear you of suspicion in this case.") So he invents a dinner with MK that probably never happened.

He should have shut up and called his lawyer. It's amazing how many suspects don't, however, probably because LE makes it clear that non-cooperation will be seen by them as a sign of guilt.

 

[Nova]

So, in your view, it is plausible that a normal 20 year old would find a dead body of her roommate, decide to not notify anyone but instead go on her normal business? What kind of person would do something like that?

I find that quite a stretch myself. I've been arguing here that college-age kids do immature and self-centered things, but leaving a dead body on the floor so as not to interfere with your day plans--that seems too extreme, even for a 20-year-old.

 

[Nova]

A murderer.

What kind of person in Seattle arrives home to find the front door wide open, blood on the sink and a bloody footprint on the bath mat, thinks nothing of it, has a shower, dawdles around, then leaves to visit a friend for lunch and only then mentions to the friend that something is not right at home. Who then calls one of the roommates (Meredith), gets no answer, then calls Filomina ... who says to call Meredith ... and then fails to tell Filomina that she has already called Meredith and got no answer?

Are people in Seattle odd and anable to recognize and react to a break in?

The answer is "someone who doesn't speak the local language, fears she and the police won't understand one another, and hopes a native speaker will show up soon to handle the matter."

 

[dgfred]

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.

Fine by me. Those so-called 'examples' are not what I asked for. I asked for examples of anyone here (now it seems you were accusing me of this) twisting or misstating facts (it also seems since I left out the ON PURPOSE part in the sentence) I am at fault. That is not how I see it at all. The very first example for instance is a still on-going debate/disagreement on what Patrick considered of AK's work and her firing/demotion to only handing out flyers while Meredith was coming to make drinks at least one night a week... which we were arguing if it may have affected AK in some way or another (or not). I was only posting what Patrick said in Daily Mail interviews. Malkmus was posting it wasn't such a big deal, and emphasizing that she was not fired... yet. I openly admitted she was not 'fired' from the entire job, but only demoted. Then I continued one could also look at it as she was fired from waitressing. Anyway, glad that 'all there is to know about' is so easily attained... that affirms some of my thoughts too. Don't be angry because the hole dug about the twisting/misstatements of facts and statements applies sooo directly to AK, RS and RG... wasn't dug on it's own. :therethere:

Why would I have any desire to mistate or twist anything... they have already been convicted? No mistatements or twisting is necessary regarding what was presented and argued in court. If I ever do anyone here is welcomed to call me on it, and I hope they do. But for sure that is not an example of anything ON PURPOSE by me... and I haven't seen it really from anyone here debating on the side of the guilty verdicts. Different points of view maybe... but nothing intentional. Plus, skip and scroll is always an option. See, maybe there is more to 'know about' everyone.

 

[Nova]

Seems you are doing some mental gymnastics to get around this :waitasec: .

They were not on the computer 'all night' any way you look at it, having a transcript or not doesn't either :banghead: .

So you are saying: The cops ask you (during a murder investigation) what you did last night.... and your answer would be 'on the computer' :crazy: .
Then you are shown this couldn't be so, and you CHANGE your alibi. Then you are told this alibi couldn't be right either, you CHANGE your alibi once again. You might would be sitting right there in jail with them in that case.

If I was asked what I did last Sunday during a murder investigation... I would be a specific as I possibly could. Unless that is I had something to do with it.
You can not get any more suspicious than claiming you were doing something that you obviously were NOT. Not to mention changing your answers to 'fit' the evidence against you. Minute by minute would be another matter... but not hours upon hours IMO.

Oh, please. Almost nobody responds with a minute-by-minute report when asked what they did during an evening several days before. They respond in general terms: "We went to a movie." "We stayed home and watched TV." "We were on the computer." Apparently, you keep a minute-to-minute diary of your every move, but most of us can't tell you what we did every second three days ago and will generalize with the most memorable action of the evening.

Pouncing on the fact (if it is indeed a fact) that computer records show RS and AK stopped their computer usage between 9 and 10 is PRECISELY the sort of technique LE uses to put people off guard in the hope the witness/suspect will offer up new info. Obviously, it works.

 

[Nova]

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.

For the record, I am not a friend of Amanda Knox. I do not know her; she does not know me. I see no likelihood we will ever meet.

I do however believe people should be found guilty only when that guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A badly botched investigation, coerced testimony, screwed up forensic testimony, out-and-out lies by investigators on the witness stand, and an overzealous prosecutor all add up to less than "beyond reasonable doubt" to me.

It has nothing to do with my imagining a personal connection with Amanda Knox.

Could and should AK have realized sooner that she was in a perilous position? Yes. But we tell kids that the police are their friends and never arrest the wrong person, much less convict the innocent. We shouldn't be surprised if someone like AK is foolish enough to believe us.

 

[Nova]

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."

otto, I can't see the doc until it tapes late on Saturday night.

In what form were the diaries? Because if they were handwritten, then I don't believe there were copies: nobody BUT LE could have released them once they were confiscated.

To my knowledge, however, that's as far as we can go. We don't know who among the ILE team copied the diaries (I assume) and passed them on.

 

[Nova]

I would tend to agree. It was the cirucmstantial evidence of the lies Amanda told, her voluntary statement, the completely unbelievable story that she found the door open where she did nothing, and so much more that made police suspicious. There is nothing normal about the way that Amanda reacted to the murder of Meredith Kercher, and it cannot all be excused as "Amanda being Amanda" or "Amanda being Amelie". She was a mature student traveling and studying in Europe who had a history of taking advantage of situations (Berlin), indulging in drugs, selecting friends that enjoyed the world of drugs, lying to police, treating a murder investigation like a joke and basically doing exactly the opposite of what others in her situation were doing.

She had a history of "treating a murder investigation like a joke"? When was that?

 

[Nova]

Steve Moore being fired had nothing to do with not knowing the difference between a travel auther(when in fact she wrote as a food critic) and a food critic

FBI agent Steve Moore, a Los Angeles resident, told the West Seattle Herald he was fired Tuesday after refusing to stop speaking out in support of Amanda Knox on national television and radio. He was deputy director of Public Safety at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California. His supervisors were concerned that he was endangering students in Pepperdine's Florence, Italy program

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2010/09/29/news/former-fbi-agent-steve-moore-fired-speaking-out-a

Two weeks ago, while its students were writing some of their thoughts on a hastily constructed "Free Speech Wall" on campus, Pepperdine's administration was preparing to write to Steve Moore that if he didn't stop talking about Knox, he would be have to resign. Pepperdine felt Moore's advocacy for Amanda Knox was incompatible with keeping his job at the university
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20018133-504083.html

Although Moore only conducted is activities on behalf of Knox and Sollecito when he was not working, Pepperdine reacted to the media attention Moore was garnering by firing him on September 28, 2010.

Moore filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against Pepperdine University on October 7, 2010

http://justicedenied.org/wordpress/archives/401

Steve Moore, who lives in Los Angeles, says he was fired as deputy director of Public Safety at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif. Moore says his supervisors were concerned that he was endangering students in Pepperdine's Florence, Italy program

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Former-FBI-agent-who-says-Knox-is-innocent-is-fired-104051923.html

Really OT, but I was once hired and fired by the same university in one day, because I refused to deny being gay if one of my students should ask.

(To be fair, the following year I was hired and taught there for a semester without incident. Apparently, something had happened and my being gay was no longer an issue as long as I agreed that students could express Christian views in class.)

My point is that it isn't a college that likes controversy.

 

[Nova]

Which always brings me back to the point that if I had of committed a murder that was not known to anyone and with so many people away i would of walked out not done something out of concern. She could of gone on her merry way for at least one day if not 2 more

That's something I've always wondered about. Why--if AK was so irresponsible and indifferent, and especially if she murdered MK--did AK bother calling Filomena and, with RS, call the carabinieri?

AK and RS could have gone away on their trip and stayed several days.

otto and others have made a big deal out of AK's and RS' location when MK's room was opened, how AK and RS supposedly "distanced themselves" from the crime by hanging back in the kitchen.

But they could have REALLY distanced themselves from the crime by actually leaving town and going on their trip.

 

[dgfred]

Oh, please. Almost nobody responds with a minute-by-minute report when asked what they did during an evening several days before. They respond in general terms: "We went to a movie." "We stayed home and watched TV." "We were on the computer." Apparently, you keep a minute-to-minute diary of your every move, but most of us can't tell you what we did every second three days ago and will generalize with the most memorable action of the evening.

Pouncing on the fact (if it is indeed a fact) that computer records show RS and AK stopped their computer usage between 9 and 10 is PRECISELY the sort of technique LE uses to put people off guard in the hope the witness/suspect will offer up new info. Obviously, it works.

Please indeed. Regarding your 'examples':

LE (during murder investigation) ask you- What did you do do what did you do Sunday night (today Thurs)?

witness replys- I was on the computer all night with my girlfriend present.

LE says- Computer records and cell activity shows that isn't so.

witness replys- OK, I was home, but girlfriend left from about 9 or so until 1am.

LE says- OK mr witness... you are now a SUSPECT.

I really see nothing wrong with that line of questioning or the responses afterwards. Which was:

LE (during murder investigation) ask other witness (girlfriend)- your boyfriend has just told us you were NOT with him all night... can you explain this?

witness replys- I don't know, we ah... smoked that one joint, and ah... I don't really remember, and ah... we took a shower, and ah... oh yeah we ate 4 or 5 times that night, and ah... we had a water leak, and ah... we had sex I think, and ah... we went to sleep, and oh RS washed my ears, and ah... on and on...... :innocent:

LE first :waiting: then says- well, your cell phone records show you out of the apartment and what is this message to Patrick?

witness replys- anic:

Doesn't even really take :websleuther: to figure something was going on IMO.

 

[Nova]

Amanda Knox made vague, imprecise statements. That is a fact. She repeatedly claims she does not remember (in many instances), but when questioned a different way about the same point, it appears she does remember. For example, when asked whether she remembered her mother asking her why she made the first phone call, she doesn't remember. A little later, she does remember her mother asking her about the call. Another example, Amanda claims that she was all drugged up and didn't remember the night Meredith was murdered, and then miraculously she remembers that she had a little walk with Raffaele, then ate at 11:00 pm, or maybe 10 or maybe 9:30, had sex, got stoned, slept. There were some problems corroborating that "imprecise" information. Imprecise is an awfully polite way of saying that Knox is a liar.

No person on the planet--including you and I--can recount their life with any greater specificity, unless they have a job where they keep a minute-to-minute log. This supposed evidence against AK is ridiculous.

IIRC, Filomena testified in one instance that she shut tight the shutters to her room. Later, when the same question was asked in a slightly different way, she said she couldn't be sure they were closed tightly.

Shall we now assume Filomena--the known liar--helped the "gang" kill MK, too? It must have been very crowded in that bedroom.

 

[Nova]

No, I haven't seen the movie, but I've spent enough time on a campus to know what students are like. There are some students that should not be attending colleges and universities because their objective is to party. They show up to class hung over and in bad moods. They are sitting there, eyes glazed over, watching the clock, downing gallons of coffee on an empty stomach and planning where to go drinking later in the day. There are many other students that should be there because they are mature and interested in pursuing career objectives. Knox was in Italy, and she was expected to govern herself accordingly ... too bad she connected with the drug crowd as soon as she arrived.

It would be great if Lifetime would now make a movie about Meredith, the real victim.

The problem with a proposed movie about MK is what is the story? NOBODY holds her even partially responsible for her death, so from her point of view, the murder is merely a random ending to an unexceptional story, unexceptional because by all accounts, MK was a lovely young woman, a serious student, a loving daughter and a good friend. Those are not the ingredients from which drama is made. As Aristotle pointed out 2400 years ago!

 

[Nova]

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.

The above is misleading (no doubt unintentionally so).

PL was arrested and kept in jail because he fit ILE's then current theory of the crime. AK was prompted to mention his name in order to provide probable cause (or whatever the Italian equivalent is) for the arrest (and, I suspect, because ILE genuinely believed they had caught the two murderers in AK and RG).

 

[dgfred]

No person on the planet--including you and I--can recount their life with any greater specificity, unless they have a job where they keep a minute-to-minute log. This supposed evidence against AK is ridiculous.

IIRC, Filomena testified in one instance that she shut tight the shutters to her room. Later, when the same question was asked in a slightly different way, she said she couldn't be sure they were closed tightly.

Shall we now assume Filomena--the known liar--helped the "gang" kill MK, too? It must have been very crowded in that bedroom.

No need to be sarcastic IMO.

And just to let you know: I have a big calender on my desk at work, one on a table in my garage, and also keep a smaller one in my vehicle. I keep up with appointments, birthdays, my daughter's tennis matches, co-worker vacations, etc... but it may only be some ocd-related 'thing' I have. Probably not exactly 'normal' for a 46 year old guy anyway... much less some 20yr olds. Although I did keep up with my stuff while in school with my own calender type notes. :loser:

 

[Nova]

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.

That's disingenuous and you know it. Everyone agrees AK and RS told lies.

What some of us are saying (and what substantial research shows) is that telling lies in response to interrogation isn't necessarily a sign of guilt. It's often a reaction to the pressure of the questioning.

 

[Nova]

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.

You've been presented with hundreds of pages on coerced testimony. You simply choose to disregard it because it doesn't fit your theory that Ak "has no soul" (whatever that means).

 

[dgfred]

The above is misleading (no doubt unintentionally so).

PL was arrested and kept in jail because he fit ILE's then current theory of the crime. AK was prompted to mention his name in order to provide probable cause (or whatever the Italian equivalent is) for the arrest (and, I suspect, because ILE genuinely believed they had caught the two murderers in AK and RG).

She did QUITE a bit more than 'just mention his name'... don't ya think?

She said she met him, he was there in the cottage, he hurt Meredith, she heard a scream, he was bad, she was scared of him. Probable cause if there ever was IMO.

And don't you mean 'RS' instead of RG there?

 

[Nova]

Please indeed. Regarding your 'examples':

LE (during murder investigation) ask you- What did you do do what did you do Sunday night (today Thurs)?

witness replys- I was on the computer all night with my girlfriend present.

Do you have a transcript of this exchange? You've added the word "all." To my knowledge, we don't know that RS said this.

LE says- Computer records and cell activity shows that isn't so.

witness replys- OK, I was home, but girlfriend left from about 9 or so until 1am.

LE says- OK mr witness... you are now a SUSPECT.

Given how quickly RS took back the claim that AK was gone for those specific hours, I'm sure it took more prompting than that to get the answer ILE wanted. For one thing, RS would have no way of knowing TOD, so I'm sure his interrogators helped him with that much.

I really see nothing wrong with that line of questioning or the responses afterwards. Which was:

LE (during murder investigation) ask other witness (girlfriend)- your boyfriend has just told us you were NOT with him all night... can you explain this?

witness replys- I don't know, we ah... smoked that one joint, and ah... I don't really remember, and ah... we took a shower, and ah... oh yeah we ate 4 or 5 times that night, and ah... we had a water leak, and ah... we had sex I think, and ah... we went to sleep, and oh RS washed my ears, and ah... on and on...... :innocent:

LE first :waiting: then says- well, your cell phone records show you out of the apartment and what is this message to Patrick?

witness replys- anic:

Doesn't even really take :websleuther: to figure something was going on IMO.

I agree. Such tactics by LE can be very effective in catching guilty suspects. Unfortunately, there is also ample proof that the same tactics often elicit false statements from innocent suspects. This is why corroborating evidence is so important before any statement is taken at face value. It's also why it's important that LE personnel keep open minds and don't simply grab at every statement that seems to support their preconceived theory.

 

[dgfred]

That's disingenuous and you know it. Everyone agrees AK and RS told lies.

What some of us are saying (and what substantial research shows) is that telling lies in response to interrogation isn't necessarily a sign of guilt. It's often a reaction to the pressure of the questioning.

Why not now... straighten out those lies???? Both AK in court during her statements, and RS (though he REFUSED to testify) could have set the record straight in every instance of lying. Why would they not?????

Well really it is the only a reaction to how the evidence (in every instance) is argued to be false, contaminated, planted, lied about, coerced, etc. How could it be so in every instance? And why is there soooo much/many? So not really disingenuous IMO.

Pressure in questioning is absolutely necessary! There is no evidence of anything above that being used in this case.

Telling lies in a murder investigation is foolish, and to continue to do so is just piling on the misery. How much different would everything be if they just admitted that they made terrible mistakes in judgement? As it is now, IMO AK can not admit to anything... her family has invested so much in trying to show/prove/wiggle her not guilty. With RS IMO it is different... I believe his family 'knows' he had something to do with it but will not permit his admittance. His father made the 'make water run uphill' statement and his sister IIRC has been fired from LE for trying to influence politicians in regards to the case by getting investigators removed. In RG's regard, he has possibly got the best outcome of all by taking the fast track trial benefits... I really don't expect him to 'admit' anything either. That's just my opinion though.