WARNING:GRAPHIC PHOTOS Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #8

[Nova]

If you believe that Bastistelli said "I did not enter the room" when he actually meant "I entered the room but I did not move around the room or disturb any evidence" then you are claiming that he used inexact language. I actually believe "inexact" is putting it nicely, because to me it sounds like he said exactly the opposite of what you claim he meant.

I think that he may have worried that he did something wrong, and he was scared, and it may have affected his testimony or recounting of events, perhaps similar to how I think fear and pressure influenced AK's recollection of events.

You're right. "Inexact" was me being polite. If it were AK, any vagueness of language would be called a lie.

 

[dgfred]

I haven't seen anything conceded by the innocent side. Why, if it has been conceded, is the argument that she was coerced or named the person police WANTED her to name STILL being made. Maybe just stating she lied, because she was scared and under pressure (like Chasing did) is the best way to go.

In fact, that is a major problem with debating the case. Everything has an excuse or an attempt to deflect the 'meaning'.

Interesting to me that she has been convicted of murder in a long trial with over 20+ judges looking over the evidence, with multiple judges on the jury,
and alot of evidence pointing to guilt... yet people still continue with the 'she was railroaded' bit. If she was in the US IMO, she would be facing the death penalty... unless she was able to afford an OJ-type defense that is.

 

[flourish]

I haven't seen anything conceded by the innocent side. Why, if it has been conceded, is the argument that she was coerced or named the person police WANTED her to name STILL being made. Maybe just stating she lied, because she was scared and under pressure (like Chasing did) is the best way to go.

In fact, that is a major problem with debating the case. Everything has an excuse or an attempt to deflect the 'meaning'.

Interesting to me that she has been convicted of murder in a long trial with over 20+ judges looking over the evidence, with multiple judges on the jury,
and alot of evidence pointing to guilt... yet people still continue with the 'she was railroaded' bit. If she was in the US IMO, she would be facing the death penalty... unless she was able to afford an OJ-type defense that is.

dgfred, you've posted a lot of good posts recently, and I thank you. What I emboldened above is exactly the reason why I realized that the only thing I'm getting from arguing here is frustration, so I stopped and went back to lurking to save myself admonishments and further frustration.

I also realized that regardless of the outcome of the appeal, it's not going to stop people from continuing to argue that the appeal was wrong, conviction was wrong and so on and so forth. I suspect this is one of those cases where it'll be debated for decades to come.

I do look forward to lurking and reading more of your posts. Your thought about Patrick and how would AK know he was or wasn't there is quite interesting, and I've been pondering that all morning.

 

[Nova]

I haven't seen anything conceded by the innocent side. Why, if it has been conceded, is the argument that she was coerced or named the person police WANTED her to name STILL being made. Maybe just stating she lied, because she was scared and under pressure (like Chasing did) is the best way to go.

In fact, that is a major problem with debating the case. Everything has an excuse or an attempt to deflect the 'meaning'.

Interesting to me that she has been convicted of murder in a long trial with over 20+ judges looking over the evidence, with multiple judges on the jury,
and alot of evidence pointing to guilt... yet people still continue with the 'she was railroaded' bit. If she was in the US IMO, she would be facing the death penalty... unless she was able to afford an OJ-type defense that is.

Again, EVERYONE has "conceded" that AK was wrong to implicate Mr. Lumumba. So if you want a concession, there you go.

But that accusation makes no sense as a guilty person's attempt to deflect suspicion from herself: PL might have an alibi (he did); in accusing him, AK put herself at the scene; according to some, AK was up all night cleaning and staging the crime scene, yet she dropped that subterfuge within two hours of questioning (per otto's reckoning). If AK were being crafty and devious, she was better off with her original story that she was with RS all night at his apartment.

The accusation DOES makes sense as coerced testimony because LE already suspected PL based on a misreading of text messages.

Call is "making excuses" if you like, but all testimony should be corroborated by some circumstantial evidence.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Because there is no recording of AK's statements, the 'guilty' side believes that Amanda came up with PL's name all on her own, that it was her idea to blame him, and that she did so with malice. And while that's a nice story to bolster the 'guilt,' it is in no way corroborated by anything that any of us can point to as a source. Therefore, the opposite is just as likely (perhaps even more likely) to be true.

The point is that none of us know how and why exactly PL's name went from being on a text message to AK accusing him of something he didn't do.

Sure, you can assume and imagine what you'd like. But proof? There simply is NONE.

So every time someone brings up PL's name as if it is a certain fact that AK decided all on her own to blame him and then when they go on to deny that there was any coersion (as if they'd actually know), these assumptions and imaginings are challenged by the other side.

Because when it comes right down to it....

NO ONE HERE KNOWS for a fact what LE said, how they said it, how that interrogation went down, and how it came to the point of AK pointing at PL and the rest of it. And if someone outside this case claim AK said something in that interrogation, without any proof, they are blowing smoke out of their you-know-where!

NO ONE.

 

[flourish]

Because there is no recording of AK's statements, the 'innocent' side believes that Amanda was fed PL's name by the police, and that she gave his name and statement regarding him with no malice, just confusion and coercion. And while that's a nice story to bolster the 'innocent,' it isn't corroborated by anything that any of us can point to as a source. Therefore, the opposite is just as likely to be true.

The point is that none of us know how and why exactly PL's name went from being on a text message to AK accusing him of something he didn't do.

So every time someone brings up PL's name as if it is a certain fact that AK was fed his name in an effort to place the blame on him and then when they go on to insist that there was coercion (as if they'd actually know), these assumptions and imaginings are challenged by the other side.

But when it comes right down to it....

No one here knows for a fact what LE said, how they said it, how that interrogation went down, and how it came to the point of AK pointing at PL and the rest of it.

So why are we even here--why do we continue to discuss it? Why does this thread even exist? Semi-rhetorical, but feel free to answer.

 

[SleuthyGal]

We do know several things, which are evidential:

1. There was a text message between PL & AK

2. In 1 txt message AK wrote "Ok, see you later" when she learned she wasn't needed at work

3. ILE thought that text literally meant "see you later tonight"

4. ILE started the questioning/interrogation.

5. AK did not walk in to police headquarters and volunteer that PL committed a murder. She was questioned/interrogated. We know that.

6. We know that AK was questioned (interrogated) for at least a few hrs and maybe more than a few.

7. This "PL is involved" admission comes somewhere in the 2-3am timeframe, as Mignini is brought into the station where he gets AK to tell him this rendition.

8. Court testimony includes information about PL's name being brought up and mentioned by police.

9. ILE takes issue with AK claiming she was 'hit on the back of the head,' (to the point that they brought charges about that), but they don't take issue with her talking about the text message, what they questioned her about, PL's name and how they immediately thought he was involved. Why didn't ILE object to that if it was false? They seem so sensitive about being accused of things. Why not this very thing?

10. It is logical that because there were text messages between AK and PL that ILE would question them. And because they were looking for an involved male and they didn't understand the context of "see you later" it is also reasonable that they would continue to question about PL. We know that AK did not *immediately* place blame on P.L. How do we know that? Because the first 'statement' is coming in the middle of the night and we know they started their questioning hours before that. In court testimony AK says they called her "stupid," told her she just wasn't remembering him there, and that one of the officers hit her. So what is ILE upset about? The hitting part of her statement in court. NOT the statements made about how the interrogation went with the questions she said she was asked.

 

[Allusonz]

To SleuthyGal's list I would like to add (just a start all):

1. Giuliano Mignini



Mignini followed Carlizzi's intuitions, describing the murder as "a premeditated ... sexual and sacrificial rite" timed for Halloween. And, as with the Monster case in Florence, no evidence was presented to back the theory. This was what disturbed the Florence judges the most.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/knox-prosecutor-tainted-by-satanism-case-1992485.html

In the Judges Report as follows:

"Mignini," they wrote, "constantly demonstrates ... an absence of sufficient thought ... an obliteration of the distinction between what is mere suspicion and what has the significance of a more pregnant accusation."

"No one," they write, "has an absolute right not to be put under investigation, even if they are innocent; but everyone has the right not to be investigated if no evidence emerges ... that goes beyond mere suspicion."


2. Fabio Giobbi

There were 3 things that gave her guilt away and not the 3 things most would think. They were arrested prior to the forensic results based on the following (and backed up by an interview with him as seen on youtube in which Amanda Knox's picture was on the wall):

"Giobbi told 48 Hours he was proud that Knox and Sollecito were arrested before fingerprints, blood, footprints, or DNA were analyzed by his office. Instead, Giobbi explained, the case was solved simply by observing Amanda Knox's behavior"

The first "suspicious" Knox incident took place at the crime scene. Amanda Knox broke down, sobbing uncontrollably

The second incident a hula-hoop motion with her hands on her hips (Malkmus posted the la mosa video)

The third incident, according to Giobbi, was the most disturbing. Three in the afternoon and Sollecito was eating a pizza. Amanda Knox was also sharing the pizza

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20000577-504083.html?tag=mncol;lst;1

 

[Allusonz]

BBM (and snipped).
I think a possible reason may be that the postal police were asked about contamination and denied it. The police probably shook hands with RS/AK upon arrival as would be normal, then one entered the room and touched things. It is understandable there would be pressure to answer questions in a way to comply with the investigations theory.

If he doesnt enter = no contamination. Of course it is ridiculous to think that he did not.

You bring up some valid observations which could be the reason.

I posted tongue-in-cheek there as I do believe that the postal police did in fact enter the room to render aid, and it was actually them that inadvertantly moved the body. It has to be my belief though as at that point in time as to my knowledge no photo's were actually taken at that point in time to show the exact positioning etc. of her body, the duvet etc thus the postpartum lividity

Again though that is only my belief and it could very well of been for reasons of contamination

 

[Malkmus]

Yep, but thanks for your guidance.

Nobody said it was used by the prosecution.

If she knows Patrick is innocent in that conversation, HOW did she know?

'Stupid to lie about it'???? That's pretty funny :crazy: Isn't that her SOP???

So apparently this is another confession and the defense decided to share it with the court. Okay. Or it implies that she was at Raf's as she's always maintained except for a period of a few hours on November 6th.

 

[Malkmus]

Yep, but thanks for your guidance.

Nobody said it was used by the prosecution.

If she knows Patrick is innocent in that conversation, HOW did she know?

'Stupid to lie about it'???? That's pretty funny :crazy: Isn't that her SOP???

I've said this before. She said she realized that Patrick was in prison because she realized what she remembered happening that night with him never actually took place. She felt bad that she was responsible for him being in jail. This is a perfectly reasonable stance to take and doesn't mean she claimed to know for a fact that Patrik was innocent of killing Meredith.

ETA: If Amanda had really wanted to pin the blame on someone else while at the same time placing herself at the scene of the crime then it seems much more obvious to have just blamed Rudy. There would have been evidence of him there and Raf's word to back her up. IF she was a part of it that is. Amanda's story of what happened that night has all the signs of someone who had absolutely no clue what actually happened in that cottage.

 

[Malkmus]

So you are thinking he saw Meredith was dead, saw her throat was cut, but didn't go into the room??? You think he meant he saw through the duvet???
His referring to 'not going in the room' is meant as not going about the room disturbing things IMO.

I don't know why you're asking me, Batistelli is the one who said for a fact that he did not enter the room. Luca saw him go in and lift the duvet. Batistelli lied.

 

[Malkmus]

I haven't seen anything conceded by the innocent side. Why, if it has been conceded, is the argument that she was coerced or named the person police WANTED her to name STILL being made. Maybe just stating she lied, because she was scared and under pressure (like Chasing did) is the best way to go.

In fact, that is a major problem with debating the case. Everything has an excuse or an attempt to deflect the 'meaning'.

Interesting to me that she has been convicted of murder in a long trial with over 20+ judges looking over the evidence, with multiple judges on the jury,
and alot of evidence pointing to guilt... yet people still continue with the 'she was railroaded' bit. If she was in the US IMO, she would be facing the death penalty... unless she was able to afford an OJ-type defense that is.

I see this stated a lot and I don't get it. There is an appeals process for a reason. It seems that many would not like to see the defendants get a second chance (and even a third by law). As this is an ongoing trial, the final decision has not been made so there should be no reason really to not question the evidence until it's been independently reviewed and a new judge and jury has presided. I feel like were supposed to just shut up and accept the first trial's verdict and and pretend there is no appeals process happening right now. I don't think that's right.

 

[Malkmus]

We do know several things, which are evidential:

1. There was a text message between PL & AK

2. In 1 txt message AK wrote "Ok, see you later" when she learned she wasn't needed at work

3. ILE thought that text literally meant "see you later tonight"

4. ILE started the questioning/interrogation.

5. AK did not walk in to police headquarters and volunteer that PL committed a murder. She was questioned/interrogated. We know that.

6. We know that AK was questioned (interrogated) for at least a few hrs and maybe more than a few.

7. This "PL is involved" admission comes somewhere in the 2-3am timeframe, as Mignini is brought into the station where he gets AK to tell him this rendition.

8. Court testimony includes information about PL's name being brought up and mentioned by police.

9. ILE takes issue with AK claiming she was 'hit on the back of the head,' (to the point that they brought charges about that), but they don't take issue with her talking about the text message, what they questioned her about, PL's name and how they immediately thought he was involved. Why didn't ILE object to that if it was false? They seem so sensitive about being accused of things. Why not this very thing?

10. It is logical that because there were text messages between AK and PL that ILE would question them. And because they were looking for an involved male and they didn't understand the context of "see you later" it is also reasonable that they would continue to question about PL. We know that AK did not *immediately* place blame on P.L. How do we know that? Because the first 'statement' is coming in the middle of the night and we know they started their questioning hours before that. In court testimony AK says they called her "stupid," told her she just wasn't remembering him there, and that one of the officers hit her. So what is ILE upset about? The hitting part of her statement in court. NOT the statements made about how the interrogation went with the questions she said she was asked.

Another undisputed aspect of the interrogation, and highly important IMO, is the translator persuading Amanda to believe she was traumatized from witnessing the murder as a rationale for not having any remembrance of going to the cottage with Patrik. This shows that simply introducing Patrik into the equation did not prompt an accusation from her. It took persuasion.

 

[sherlockh]

I see this stated a lot and I don't get it. There is an appeals process for a reason. It seems that many would not like to see the defendants get a second chance (and even a third by law). As this is an ongoing trial, the final decision has not been made so there should be no reason really to not question the evidence until it's been independently reviewed and a new judge and jury has presided. I feel like were supposed to just shut up and accept the first trial's verdict and and pretend there is no appeals process happening right now. I don't think that's right.

I doubt anybody is going to shut up. Even after their appeals

 

[Malkmus]

I doubt anybody is going to shut up. Even after their appeals

Nor should they. No matter what they believe.

 

[Nova]

Because there is no recording of AK's statements, the 'guilty' side believes that Amanda came up with PL's name all on her own, that it was her idea to blame him, and that she did so with malice. And while that's a nice story to bolster the 'guilt,' it is in no way corroborated by anything that any of us can point to as a source. Therefore, the opposite is just as likely (perhaps even more likely) to be true.

The point is that none of us know how and why exactly PL's name went from being on a text message to AK accusing him of something he didn't do.

Sure, you can assume and imagine what you'd like. But proof? There simply is NONE.

So every time someone brings up PL's name as if it is a certain fact that AK decided all on her own to blame him and then when they go on to deny that there was any coersion (as if they'd actually know), these assumptions and imaginings are challenged by the other side.

Because when it comes right down to it....

NO ONE HERE KNOWS for a fact what LE said, how they said it, how that interrogation went down, and how it came to the point of AK pointing at PL and the rest of it. And if someone outside this case claim AK said something in that interrogation, without any proof, they are blowing smoke out of their you-know-where!

NO ONE.

SleuthyGal, you are right that no one knows for sure, but I think one can reasonably infer that PL's name was first brought up by LE because of the text message.

1. That's what AK has said. AK has not always been truthful, so if this were the only evidence it wouldn't mean much. But there are other reasons to believe her.

2. AK had no independent reason to implicate PL. Despite attempts to claim the contrary, there is no evidence of a grudge between AK and PL. She was scheduled to work on the night of the murder; she discussed changing to daytime shifts after the murder. Obviously, AK had not been fired. That she had no grudge against PL is apparent in the way she attempts to recant even as she accuses PL, by saying her memory of his involvement isn't real.

3. Accusing PL was very risky because, in fact, AK had no knowledge of where he had been that evening or what he had done. As it turned out, PL had a rock-solid alibi. It would have been safer for AK to blame a "bushy haired stranger" that the police couldn't trace than an actual person who could be traced and cleared (even though it took an eternity to do so) by LE. Guilty women who have made false accusations to divert suspicion from themselves (Susan Smith, Diane Downs) figured out it was smarter to blame someone who would never be found.

4. In accusing PL, AK had to put herself at the scene of the crime. Perhaps she didn't realize all the implications of doing so, but surely she sensed it was risky to give up her story of being at RS's apartment all night. She must have had some reason to believe that by implicating PL, she could mollify ILE. The most likely reason for her to believe that is that ILE was already suggesting PL as the murderer.

5. In accusing PL and placing herself at the scene of the crime, AK squandered the alleged hours she had spent cleaning up and staging the crime scene. As with #4, surely she had strong reasons to suspect that ILE would believe PL was the perp for her to give up all that effort spent on staging. As with #4, the most likely explanation is that ILE already suspected PL, probably because of the text message.

6. Finally, in accusing PL, AK offers little detail and nothing the police hadn't already assumed. This is consistent with telling ILE what it wanted to know, but not with confessing to an actual event.

(ETA You and Malkmus got to much of this before me, but I think I've added some arguments so I'm going to leave it. I misunderstood your point and thought you were arguing it was simply a mystery how PL's name entered the interrogation. Obviously, I don't agree with that. I think the evidence is largely circumstantial, but I think it's clear who brought him into the discussion.)

 

[claudicici]

I do think implicating PL is part of the reason I think she's innocent,like someone else said if she put herself in the crimescene and was really there she would have implicated Rudy instead.
And Rudy would have implicated AManda and Raffael immedeately when he was arrested if they were really there.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Hi Nova,

Thanks for that list.

No I was pointing out the things we (all) know as a counterpoint to what Flourish posted, and from that list of evidentiary items we can see that AK was likely not the first one to bring up P.L's name.

Had there never been a text msg between PL and AK then the ILE would not have been on that particular trail. AK probably would not have thought of PL's name at all because in her mind she found out she didn't need to work and she confirmed that she received the msg. No big deal, standard stuff.

It's clear from the testimony that she was ASKED about that text and the questioning focused on that point, with ILE convinced they had some nefarious plan to meet up later that night because they didn't understand the English vernacular/meaning of "see you later." That, btw, is not contested by anyone involved in the case. ILE did go down that particular rabbit hole.

I find it very interesting and telling that with the libel suits ILE is bringing against AK and now her parents, they have not charged them for any of those particular interrogatory questions and statements made. For a lawsuit-happy, extremely sensitive jurisdiction, they sure haven't reacted to THAT part of AK's testimony! That's an indication that it's the truth and they know it's the truth!

 

[dgfred]

I see this stated a lot and I don't get it. There is an appeals process for a reason. It seems that many would not like to see the defendants get a second chance (and even a third by law). As this is an ongoing trial, the final decision has not been made so there should be no reason really to not question the evidence until it's been independently reviewed and a new judge and jury has presided. I feel like were supposed to just shut up and accept the first trial's verdict and and pretend there is no appeals process happening right now. I don't think that's right.

Well that is kind of the problem. Once the verdicts are verified, the 'innocent' posters will be able to keep their arguments going for a long while (like around 20 years) using the same excuses... think of the post counts. The 'guilty' side will only be able to post that the courts have decided, and they received a fair trial. The views will not change regardless. I for one welcome the appeals, and am confident the knife/bra-clasp evidence will be found reasonable. Once that is done IMO the defense will be left impotent. I also enjoy the debate with any evidence/or lack of... just don't like the attitudes or the snarkiness much of the time. IMO the case wouldn't be such a big deal to the 'innocent' side if it would have happened here in the United States... she would just be another prisoner.