Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#4

[Kimster]

Abuse / Flaming / Derogatory Comments:

Abusive Comments, Flaming, or derogatory insults or comments are strictly against the rules. If you disagree with another member’s point of view, do so in a mature and civil manner. If someone posts to discuss their personal problems or seeks help from other forums members, please do not respond unless you have something positive or helpful to add. If you find yourself being flamed or insulted by another member, please do not dignify that person with a response. Notify a moderator and let us handle it.

Derogatory Name Changes to Case Players/General Name Calling

In an effort to keep case discussion constructive, name calling, general bashing and using derogatory name variations for any of the case players is not tolerated. Regardless of how we may feel about many of the people that are the focus of our discussion here,it is always best to elevate the conversation and avoid this type of posting behavior. Feel free to express your displeasure with individuals that are being discussed, just avoid petty nastiness,name calling, name changes and over the top rude posts directed at case players.

Rules Etiquette & Information - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[Yellow]

Returning to the evidence, I read the true justice forum, I know what was said in court. What do people who support Amanda's conviction believe is the most convincing evidence against her? Someone before said they believed her guilty even throwing out the DNA and luminal. What supports it?

Throw out the DNA, and throw out the statements she made that were rules inadmissible by the Supreme Court of Italy. What witnesses are there? What lies/statements? If you throw out her statement about Patrick, IMO you just have her lying or perhaps just not remembering random inconsequential things like when she called her mother. How can you get to a murder conviction without at least relying on the inadmissible police statement? I don't think you can. Everything else has an equally plausible innocent explanation.

And what witnesses? Rudy? The heroin addict whose story changed? The guy in the store who said she bought stuff the next morning? The underwear store guy? The old lady across the street? The roommates who said she didn't act upset? is this what people mean by witnesses or are there more?

Who put AK and RS at the crime scene and what physical evidence ties them to MK's room leaving out the DNA evidence ruled faulty by an independent expert? Where is the murder weapon?

What motive and what evidence supports it? The sex motive? The fight about not cleaning good enough? That is the motive? What evidence supports either? Sure, maybe the roommates say the two girls argued over AK not cleaning the toilet but who would kill someone over that?

No matter how you feel about Amanda's guilt, even if you think her guilty, there is clearly reasonable doubt. There is at least a 1% chance (indeed in my mind 99.9%) chance she was just a confused kid in over her head who said some conflicting things when questioned in a foreign language by people of authority. And that would be enough to find her not guilty. The standard is not possibly, could have or even probably.

Amanda was hurt bc she did not have a rock solid alibi. But many of us would not on many days. Think last night, if you were home and were a suspect in a murder, would you have an alibi? If you are simply at home no one has a good alibi.

 

[SMK]

<modsnip> I read the true justice forum, I know what was said in court. What do people who support Amanda's conviction believe is the most convincing evidence against her? Someone before said they believed her guilty even throwing out the DNA and luminal. What supports it?

Throw out the DNA, and throw out the statements she made that were rules inadmissible by the Supreme Court of Italy. What witnesses are there? What lies/statements? If you throw out her statement about Patrick, IMO you just have her lying or perhaps just not remembering random inconsequential things like when she called her mother. How can you get to a murder conviction without at least relying on the inadmissible police statement? I don't think you can. Everything else has an equally plausible innocent explanation.

And what witnesses? Rudy? The heroin addict whose story changed? The guy in the store who said she bought stuff the next morning? The underwear store guy? The old lady across the street? The roommates who said she didn't act upset? is this what people mean by witnesses or are there more?

Who put AK and RS at the crime scene and what physical evidence ties them to MK's room leaving out the DNA evidence ruled faulty by an independent expert? Where is the murder weapon?

What motive and what evidence supports it? The sex motive? The fight about not cleaning good enough? That is the motive? What evidence supports either? Sure, maybe the roommates say the two girls argued over AK not cleaning the toilet but who would kill someone over that?

No matter how you feel about Amanda's guilt, even if you think her guilty, there is clearly reasonable doubt. There is at least a 1% chance (indeed in my mind 99.9%) chance she was just a confused kid in over her head who said some conflicting things when questioned in a foreign language by people of authority. And that would be enough to find her not guilty. The standard is not possibly, could have or even probably.

Amanda was hurt bc she did not have a rock solid alibi. But many of us would not on many days. Think last night, if you were home and were a suspect in a murder, would you have an alibi? If you are simply at home no one has a good alibi.

I began by professing their innocence and am now not completely convinced of guilt, but am open to the possibility of guilt---and see many markers (circumstantial and indirect) pointing to it.

But I agree the case is full of holes and even if they are guilty, an acquittal may be in the offing due to this fact. One would hope for justice: If they are innocent, they should be acquitted, and if culpable, the conviction should be upheld.

But it's definitely up in the air, and I don't think even those convinced fully of their guilt can be confident of a corresponding ruling. We will simply have to wait and see...

 

[otto]

Yeah the people who believe in her guilt never will concisely state the evidence and the specific witnesses that support the conviction. Nor do they ever ascribe a motive, except either the sex game thing or the bathroom thing, neither of which have any evidence to support it and the latter is just a ridiculous excuse for a murder,

Rudy confessed to being at the murder scene, that is hardly the same as confessing to the murder, indeed, he said the direct opposite and no one rightly believed him,

Why people are not outraged at Rudy's light sentence is beyond me.

Guede received a 25 year sentence, the same as Knox and Sollecito. I do not view this as a light sentence. Because he opted for the fast track trial option - something that is available to all defendants in Italy - he was guaranteed that his sentence would be reduced by one third. Included in the fast track option is the admission of participation in the crime.

After sentencing, by law, Guede's sentence was reduced to sixteen years and eight months. By law, he is elligible for parole after completing half of his sentence. This does not mean that he will be released. However, given his young age at the time of the murder: 20 years old, and his good behavior in prison, he may be deemed rehabilitated and ready to again function in society.

Many countries view prison as an opportunity to rehabilitate a criminal rather than a "lock 'em up and throw away the key" process. If Guede is rehabilitated, then conceivably he should be released and monitored to see if he can avoid drugs and alcohol and turn his life around. Life without hope cannot result in rehabilitation, so it's important to have hope. The same generous prison rehabilitation philosophy was granted to Knox during her prison stay. She participated in prison writing contests, acted in plays, enjoyed live music concerts, and was encouraged to change her ways for her betterment. Hopefully it helped her and she will think twice before accusing an innocent person of murder.

 

[Yellow]

We have all gone over the evidence repeatedly. All the response from people who think she's innocent is:

excuses for her actions
police are corrupt
prosecutors are corrupt
No one knows how to collect evidence(unless its against RG)
Judges are all wrong(except Hellmann)
Witnesses are lying or waited too long to come forward
The break in is real
AK and RS haven't lied

And if there is even a 1% chance the above is true, that is reasonable doubt. AK's innocence does not need to be proven, rather he guilt must be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. One could see how some things may be inconsistent, but once you throw out the DNA and the inadmissible statement, the evidence does not show guilt, let alone guilt beyond a reasonable doubt IMO.

 

[dgfred]

Why should anyone throw out the dna. It has not been and will not be. It is NOT at that point in the trial.
Despite what forum posters view as any lack of evidence... the Italian Court ruled they were guilty from the evidence presented. Interesting that the court or the Italian jurors are seen as not able to figure out what reasonable doubt is??? But they did.

Fussing about lack of evidence or throwing out the dna is irrelevant at this point IMO.
There IS evidence of guilt and there IS dna being used as evidence against both AK and RS.
Nobody in a position of authority in these proceedings has that view... or lack of view IMO.

 

[dgfred]

To be outraged at RG's sentence... one should be outraged that AK and RS are facing only the 25-30 years too. Maybe 50 years for all three would have been better... but they all will get the SAME amount of years charged for murder. Yes, not enough for all three IMO. Take a life and get life is ok by me.

 

[otto]

And if there is even a 1% chance the above is true, that is reasonable doubt. AK's innocence does not need to be proven, rather he guilt must be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. One could see how some things may be inconsistent, but once you throw out the DNA and the inadmissible statement, the evidence does not show guilt, let alone guilt beyond a reasonable doubt IMO.

Why would the court want to exclude DNA evidence?
What evidence is there ... off the top of my head:

• Bloody foot print attributed to Sollecito in the bathroom
• Sollecito DNA confirmed on the bra clasp
• Knox DNA/Meredith blood confirmed in small bathroom, hallway, Knox bedroom, Filomina's bedroom
• Meredith DNA confirmed on knife
• Knox/Sollecito changed alibis several times - each one being demonstrated as a lie using independent information
• Knox lied about when she ate dinner, essentially claiming that she was eating dinner at the time of the murder. Dr Sollecito's testimony proved this to be a lie
• Knox lied when she accused Mr Lumumba of murder. She did this in an attempt to redirect the police investigation away from her.
• Knox/Sollecito turned off their cell phones simultaneously from 8:30 pm to 6 am - never happened before, yet corresponds to exact time of murder and clean up time
• Knox and Sollecito claimed that they slept until 10:30 am. Cell records prove that to be untrue.
• Sollecito fabricated a story to place Meredith in his apartment to explain Meredith's DNA on the knife
• Staged break-in with room ransacked and broken glass on top of ransacked items (eye witness testimony)
• Unusual timing of phone calls from Knox to each of Meredith's phones
• Failure of Knox to tell Filomina that she had already called Meredith's phone when Filomina asked her to contact Meredith
• Failure to contact police after finding front door open, broken window, blood until after the arrival of the Postal Police
• Knox claim that Meredith routinely locked her bedroom door so police should not break door down
• Strange story about the mop and bathmat boogie

In order to avoid prosecution, the defense response has been that the one of the two prosecutors are corrupt, the police are violent, investigators are incompetent, DNA analysis experts are incompetent in all aspects: from collection to storage to methods to analysis and interpretation, the Judge is biased or corrupt, the jury is biased or corrupt and must be sequestered before they can be objective, the Supreme Court is confused and unfair, the prosecutor that appealed Hellman's decision is wrong, presumably, if the convictions are upheld, the current appeal officers of the court will be corrupt.

I'm not seeing any defense for the evidence, but I do see that the defense seems to be based on alleging that the entire Italian Justice system is broken.

 

[dgfred]

Dang... you got a giant 'top of your head'. My fantasy football team is the 'Gourdheads'.

Thanks otto.

 

[otto]

Dang... you got a giant 'top of your head'. My fantasy football team is the 'Gourdheads'.

Thanks otto.

O/T ... speaking of watermelon heads, check out these football team fans

http://www.torontosun.com/sports/columnists/terry_jones/2010/08/23/15118476.html

 

[Amber29]

And if there is even a 1% chance the above is true, that is reasonable doubt. AK's innocence does not need to be proven, rather he guilt must be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. One could see how some things may be inconsistent, but once you throw out the DNA and the inadmissible statement, the evidence does not show guilt, let alone guilt beyond a reasonable doubt IMO.

It is not up to me and you what is considered not beyond a shadow of doubt but beyond a reasonable doubt, that is for the judges/jurors to decide. There aren't just some things that are inconsitant. For instance their alibi is they stayed in all night smoked pot, ate a late dinner, and had sex and showered together.

Yet the time of dinner changed from before amanda left for what was supposed to be work at the time to possibly as late as 11 Amanda says. Why would they not have eaten dinner before she went to work that night.

They said they slept in late until 1030 or so. Except RS played music on his computer at 5:30am, turned his phone on, and received a call from his dad at 930. Add to this the store owner saying he saw amanda outside his store before he opened that morning in the 7am hour and the two being seen in the piazza multiple times that night.

Now is their alibi crystal clear?

 

[dgfred]

Haha. Nice. I have been called them all. Gourdhead, jughead, buckethead... but the best ever was my wife's co-worker called me Pez-head one time. I even laughed. It doesn't bother me... I always say I needed a big container for all my brains. Heehee.

Sorry for OT.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

That call was after Amanda had called Filomena and told her about the broken window and that Meredith was missing. And after Amanda had attempted to call Meredith's phones. Filomena was so concerned she was already heading back to the cottage. It's dishonest to say that was before anything had happened.

Comodi asked Amanda for the time difference between Perugia and Seattle, and Amanda responded nine hours. The two cities did not revert from daylight savings time to standard time on the same week; therefore the difference was only eight hours that week, and a call that Comodi implied was at 3 AM Seattle time was actually about 4:45 Seattle time.

 

[otto]

Comodi asked Amanda for the time difference between Perugia and Seattle, and Amanda responded nine hours. The two cities did not revert from daylight savings time to standard time on the same week; therefore the difference was only eight hours that week, and a call that Comodi implied was at 3 AM Seattle time was actually about 4:45 Seattle time.

It was still not a normal time for Knox to phone her mother as her mother was sleeping, and Knox would have known this.

Fall back daylight savings time would mean that instead of being 4 am, it would be 3 am, so we should subtract 9 hours from the time of the call. Italy had switched off DST and Seattle hadn't? Is that correct?

12:47 - 9 hours = 3:47 am

 

[Chris_Halkides]

It was still not a normal time for Knox to phone her mother as her mother was sleeping, and Knox would have known this.

Fall back daylight savings time would mean that instead of being 4 am, it would be 3 am, so we should subtract 9 hours from the time of the call. Italy had switched off DST and Seattle hadn't? Is that correct?

12:47 - 9 hours = 3:47 am

Seattle and Perugia did not fall back at the same date. Therefore for one week, they were only eight hours apart. Handy time converter link here.

 

[otto]

Seattle and Perugia did not fall back at the same date. Therefore for one week, they were only eight hours apart. Handy time converter link here.

Thanks. So there were 8 hours time difference, so quite right, 12:47 would have been 4:47am Seattle time.

Any thoughts on why Knox's mother decided to drop everything, take a leave of absence from work and fly to Perugia?

 

[SMK]

Thanks. So there were 8 hours time difference, so quite right, 12:47 would have been 4:47am Seattle time.

Any thoughts on why Knox's mother decided to drop everything, take a leave of absence from work and fly to Perugia?

Did the mother do this before Knox was a suspect or charged? (I really missed this part of the story).

 

[otto]

Did the mother do this before Knox was a suspect or charged? (I really missed this part of the story).

She did. Knox's mother most likely started making plans to go to Perugia immediately after Knox's phone calls early in the morning on November 2. She arrived the morning after Knox and Sollecito had been arrested, on November 6. She had to switch flights (with a delay) in Germany, and perhaps also at some point in the US.

 

[SMK]

She did. Knox's mother most likely started making plans to go to Perugia immediately after Knox's phone calls early in the morning on November 2. She arrived the morning after Knox and Sollecito had been arrested, on November 6. She had to switch flights (with a delay) in Germany, and perhaps also at some point in the US.

OK; I appreciate this clarification.

Some time ago I saw an interview with Amanda's mother, and she was expressing her regrets at not believing her relatives in Germany in the early days of the investigation (the relatives believed Knox was being questioned by PLE because they suspected her in some way, and suggested she leave Italy; the Mom said, no, she's merely helping them out. I thought she was indicating a period of weeks here, but by your timeline, it must have been mere hours or days).

 

[otto]

OK; I appreciate this clarification.

Some time ago I saw an interview with Amanda's mother, and she was expressing her regrets at not believing her relatives in Germany in the early days of the investigation (the relatives believed Knox was being questioned by PLE because they suspected her in some way, and suggested she leave Italy; the Mom said, no, she's merely helping them out. I thought she was indicating a period of weeks here, but by your timeline, it must have been mere hours or days).

I can't imagine why she would say that. When we consider the time change (Italy is 9 hours ahead on Nov 6, 2007) and making travel arrangements (last minute tickets would have been expensive), making work arrangements and travel time, I think that the mother would have had to start making plans on Friday, November 2.

On Friday she would have notified work, and she would have had to complete the paperwork for a leave of absence. I expect that she had the plane tickets before the end of the day Friday and she was probably on the earliest flights, connecting at the very least in Germany. She would have arrived at midnight Monday (per Seattle time) and morning Tuesday (per Italy time). I doubt that she could have flown from Seattle to Perugia any faster than she did.