Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #6

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think many people could write the same list with the heading "things that I have found to be untrue".

Which parts would you like to argue are untrue?
The only one I see that is open for debate is the "Amelie" one, only because I don't personally know the facts on that one. Here are the reasons we know the list is TRUE.


1. There were no proven "bloody" footprints of RS or AK anywhere. None.

– True. Verified by Stefanoni’s notes which revealed they tested negative for blood.

2. No evidence of "blood" on the 12in knife from RS's apartment.

– True. Same test as above, tested negative for blood.

3. No one purchased bleach on the morning after.

- True. No bleach receipts were found. RS’s apartment smelled like bleach because the cleaning lady had recently cleaned it. Amanda buying bleach was just wild speculation.

4. No evidence of a clean up at the cottage. No bleach used (which luminol would react with and show as smears).

-True. Lack of evidence does not mean a clean-up occurred.

5. AK never had phone contact with RG

-True. Does someone even want to try arguing against this?

6. No forensic evidence had been processed when Mignini boasted his
"sex games gone bad" theory.

-True. What is there to argue against this?

7. RS computer actually did watch the movie Amelie

-Not sure, need citation

8. No fingerprints, shoeprints, footprints, hair, or DNA of AK in MK's room

-True. Both sides acknowledge this.

9. No CCTV footage of AK going to the cottage that night.

-True. Camera wasn’t even pointed at a location where she would have crossed in front of. If there was any truth to this we would have CCTV footage of Rudy and RS as well. And them leaving.

10. No one was involved in a satanic cult.

-True. Who wants to argue against this?

11. Amanda did not take a shower in a room covered in blood. There were a few small drops and a diluted half-footprint on the bathmat.

- True. I posted the pics of the sink in the last thread.

12. AK never offered any serious theory that RS put a knife in her hand to implicate her in the murder. She was stating an impossible scenario as can be seen by the context of her writing.

-True. Those who argue against this use a mistranslated version to make their point.

13. RS called the police BEFORE the postal police or the carbinieri got there. (why else would they be waiting outside?)

-True. This is acknowledged in the judge’s report.

14. RS and AK were not "surprised" at the cottage holding a mop and bucket. The mop was not involved at all.

- True. Early tabloid rumors got this one started and it’s had a hard time dying. The mop was placed in the closet without a speck of blood before the police arrived.

15. AK had not put her own laundry in the wash that night or morning, it was MK's.

- True. Another little tabloid rumor that had a hard time dying.
 
I think many people could write the same list with the heading "things that I have found to be untrue".

That's not much of a rebuttal, otto. Which of the 15 items do you believe to be untrue?

Were the forensic results in when the "sex games gone wrong" theory was first postulated or not? (The answer is they were not. Trillian is correct.)
 
Does anyone have a timeline for the evening of Nov. 1 that you consider reliable?

I'm very curious about the 10pm call to MK's bank. I have read that call described both as an attempt to access her accounts and a mere misdial.

If it was the former, then I don't see how AK or RS could have committed the murder, since RS's computer was in use until 9:46pm, a mere 14 minutes before somebody tried to call MK's bank.

At 10:13pm there is a 9-second call from MK's English phone which may have been an attempted internet connection. I have read that this was somebody attempting to access her account via computer, but failing to figure out the password. I cannot confirm this, however.

After that call, most timelines jump to 11pm, when a witness claims he saw AK and RS together in public. Does anyone know how that witness remembered the time and whether we should consider it exact?


http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C441/

When that witness was asked that same question in court he answered that he had looked at his watch. When asked to show the watch he couldn't find it and the courtroom literally laughed at him. He changed the time he saw them at least twice, IIRC.
 
To say "it does match" is (unintentionally) misleading, otto. The most any expert could testify is that it might have made a particular wound. But even that much is controversial: some experts think it far more likely that wound was made by a smaller knife.

But my point isn't whether that knife could have made one of the wounds, my point is that it is ridiculous to believe AK or RS was carrying that knife around town. Or that that knife was specially chosen to kill MK and was brought to the murder scene for that purpose.

The court concluded the murder was not premeditated, so one has to believe AK or RS chose to carry that huge knife for "fun"? Preposterous.

If you want to argue premeditation, then you have to explain why AK or RS chose that particular knife, and why they chose to carry any knife from RS' apartment rather than simply using one of the knives at AK/MK's house.

It is also ridiculous to be smooching and playfully sticking out tongues while at the police station immediately after the discovery one's murdered roommate, but that is exactly what Amanda and Raffaele did. Just because the actions of Amanda and Raffaele are ridiculous (need I mention flipping cartwheels at the police station again?), it doesn't mean they didn't happen. Amanda and Raffaele behaved in a ridiculous manner at the time surrounding the murder of Meredith.

As for the "huge" knife, I'm only aware of one 12 inch knife, equivalent in length to many dinner knives, that appears to contain evidence of the murder and belong in Raffaele's apartment. It's a standard size knife ... no reason to make it out to be big and heavy like a sledgehammer.
 
Thank you Malkmus, Nova, Trillian, and Allusonz for refreshing my memory on many points and for providing good lists of items of evidence not true.

When compared to how 'facts' have been presented in this case it does make you scratch your head and wonder why it was so important for Mignini to insist AK and RS did it when there was enough (more than enough) to suggest otherwise. That's the problem with coming up with a theory first and then trying to make the evidence fit. Or should I say.... theories...as he had several different ones.
 
It is also ridiculous to be smooching and playfully sticking out tongues while at the police station immediately after the discovery one's murdered roommate, but that is exactly what Amanda and Raffaele did. Just because the actions of Amanda and Raffaele are ridiculous (need I mention flipping cartwheels at the police station again?), it doesn't mean they didn't happen. Amanda and Raffaele behaved in a ridiculous manner at the time surrounding the murder of Meredith.

As for the "huge" knife, I'm only aware of one 12 inch knife, equivalent in length to many dinner knives, that appears to contain evidence of the murder and belong in Raffaele's apartment. It's a standard size knife ... no reason to make it out to be big and heavy like a sledgehammer.

I haven't a single knife that size in my house except for bread knives that are designed to cut through a complete loaf. (They are serrated rather than sharp: good luck killing somebody with them.)

That isn't to say others don't have larger knives; and I don't pretend to know what would be standard in an Italian kitchen.

The point isn't whether the knife is unusual, the point is a foot-long, non-folding knife is too large to conveniently carry around. It makes no sense to insist AK brought that knife from RS' drawer and took it out for the evening as a fashion accessory. Yet there is no evidence she specifically brought it to kill MK.
 
That's not much of a rebuttal, Otto. Which of the 15 items do you believe to be untrue?

Were the forensic results in when the "sex games gone wrong" theory was first postulated or not? (The answer is they were not. Trillian is correct.)

I'm not the least bit interested in commenting on a list of phrases that someone believes to be true. People can believe what they want. I'm interested in discussing the facts and evidence of the case, which have nothing to do with personal beliefs.

The only comment I have about lists that people make identifying their beliefs is: it is my belief that the above posted lists of beliefs could also be entitled "the following is untrue".
 
I'm not the least bit interested in commenting on a list of phrases that someone believes to be true. People can believe what they want. I'm interested in discussing the facts and evidence of the case, which have nothing to do with personal beliefs.

The only comment I have about lists that people make identifying their beliefs is: it is my belief that the above posted lists of beliefs could also be entitled "the following is untrue".

Actually, Malkmus does a pretty good job of tackling that list, item by item. If you know where he has erred, I'm sure I'd like to know it.
 
It is also ridiculous to be smooching and playfully sticking out tongues while at the police station immediately after the discovery one's murdered roommate, but that is exactly what Amanda and Raffaele did. Just because the actions of Amanda and Raffaele are ridiculous (need I mention flipping cartwheels at the police station again?), it doesn't mean they didn't happen. Amanda and Raffaele behaved in a ridiculous manner at the time surrounding the murder of Meredith....

It has become painfully apparent that the theory of AK's and RS' involvement came first and the evidence was invented later, so I don't know whether to believe any of the testimony re their "inappropriate" behavior. I believe they were physically demonstrative in comforting one another; that much I've seen on videotape. The depictions calculated to make them look bad ("sticking out tongues," "cartwheels") may well be exaggerations, if not outright lies.

But even if one accepts such descriptions as true, that is a different meaning of the word "ridiculous" than carrying an unwieldy and dangerous-to-handle knife with you on an evening out.
 
You need to re-read that list then, dgfred. Points 1, 3, 4, 6, 13 were all part of the trial. Additionally, most of the other points may have had an impact on the jury and public opinion in general on Amanda's guilt. The well could have been poisoned as those jury members were fed all this false information before the trial and may have entered the courtroom with preconceived notions.

NO I DON'T :banghead: .

1- Bloody footprint on mat which the court verified the innocent side will not listen to.
2- The luminal footprints were in blood IMO and the courts, another point the innocent side will not listen to.
3- The bleach receipts were not used against either of them at trial.
4- IMO there was evidence of some type of clean up.
6- NO 'theory' or motive is necessary to convict.
13- As has been stated many times, the jurors are sworn to look over the evidence and make their decision based on that evidence... not what could be 'poison' from the media. Repeat: ONLY THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED. I see absolutely no reason they couldn't perform their duties as sworn to do... and they did.

'Preconceived notions'........ yeah, I see them. :seeya:
 
'evidence not true' :waitasec:

Is that similar to 'the best truth that I can remember'? :great:
 
NO I DON'T :banghead: .

1- Bloody footprint on mat which the court verified the innocent side will not listen to.
2- The luminal footprints were in blood IMO and the courts, another point the innocent side will not listen to.
3- The bleach receipts were not used against either of them at trial.
4- IMO there was evidence of some type of clean up.
6- NO 'theory' or motive is necessary to convict.
13- As has been stated many times, the jurors are sworn to look over the evidence and make their decision based on that evidence... not what could be 'poison' from the media. Repeat: ONLY THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED. I see absolutely no reason they couldn't perform their duties as sworn to do... and they did.

'Preconceived notions'........ yeah, I see them. :seeya:

You may disagree with how the evidence was presented in court, but your original claim was that none of these points were part of the trial, to which I stated they were. No need to bash your head into a brick wall over it, lol.
 
NO I DON'T :banghead: .

1- Bloody footprint on mat which the court verified the innocent side will not listen to.
2- The luminal footprints were in blood IMO and the courts, another point the innocent side will not listen to.
3- The bleach receipts were not used against either of them at trial.
4- IMO there was evidence of some type of clean up.
6- NO 'theory' or motive is necessary to convict.
13- As has been stated many times, the jurors are sworn to look over the evidence and make their decision based on that evidence... not what could be 'poison' from the media. Repeat: ONLY THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED. I see absolutely no reason they couldn't perform their duties as sworn to do... and they did.

'Preconceived notions'........ yeah, I see them. :seeya:

4. Even if you believe there was some evidence of clean-up, I have trouble seeing how there is enough evidence to believe someone could have cleaned up all the evidence that had to result from 4 people being involved in the killing. Where are all the footprints from AK and RS? And further, how did AK clean up only evidence of herself and her boyfriend while leaving so much evidence of RG?

6. I'm not sure how Italian law reads, but certainly in the U.S. it is true the prosecutor isn't required to prove motive. HOWEVER, we have a conspiracy to commit murder by three individuals, one which had to be formed almost instantly, even two of the conspirators had never met before. Despite various admissions from each of the defendants, RG never mentioned RS/AK, and RS/AK never mentioned RG, until a connection was proposed by LE (and they didn't say much about one another even then).

So while motive may not be a prosecutorial burden in theory, in this case, the prosecutor's claim is so wild and unlikely, some explanation is to be expected. None was forthcoming during the trial.

13. I imagine most of us here have served as jurors (I've been on three panels myself) and we're aware of what the jury is supposed to consider and disregard. But by the same token we all know, or should know, how difficult it is to "unknow" things; the more lurid and sensational, the more difficult it is to "unknow" them.

As an example, look at the West Memphis 3 case. Not only have jurors admitted they considered a confession that was never introduced in one of the trials, the foreperson himself has admitted they discussed that "non-evidence" at great length. It happens.
 
9. No CCTV footage of AK going to the cottage that night.

-True. Camera wasn’t even pointed at a location where she would have crossed in front of. If there was any truth to this we would have CCTV footage of Rudy and RS as well. And them leaving.
Not true at all. The person can be seen walking towards the cottage entrance gate at about 9pm. The camera only runs for a few minutes when a car is leaving the parking. The CCTV footage does exist, but it can't be proven that it is AK so it was not allowed in court. That doesn't mean it wasn't AK. I don't think it was the milkman :)
 
It is also ridiculous to be smooching and playfully sticking out tongues while at the police station immediately after the discovery one's murdered roommate, but that is exactly what Amanda and Raffaele did. Just because the actions of Amanda and Raffaele are ridiculous (need I mention flipping cartwheels at the police station again?), it doesn't mean they didn't happen. Amanda and Raffaele behaved in a ridiculous manner at the time surrounding the murder of Meredith.

I have behaved in similar circumstances on the serious injury of my toddler and the death of my grandmother. Do you think I killed them? I lean on compassion and humor to get me through the situation so I dont fall completely apart. Many moments are very sad after a tragedy.
But over the hours and days your spririts can be lifted or a joke can be told to break the sadness. Sometimes it is all you have when you dont know what else to do.
To think that a photographer would be there to capure just one one smiling moment and make some infernece of injustice is crazy.
 
Not true at all. The person can be seen walking towards the cottage entrance gate at about 9pm. The camera only runs for a few minutes when a car is leaving the parking. The CCTV footage does exist, but it can't be proven that it is AK so it was not allowed in court. That doesn't mean it wasn't AK. I don't think it was the milkman :)

So you think it is AK walking on her own? All by herself. Just seconds from her home? Without RS or RG? And a 12in knife in her purse? Seriously?

Any of the clothing was verified? Anything similar found missing? Anything in blood? Any photos of clothing that wasnt found?
 
So you think it is AK walking on her own? All by herself. Just seconds from her home? Without RS or RG? And a 12in knife in her purse? Seriously?

Any of the clothing was verified? Anything similar found missing? Anything in blood? Any photos of clothing that wasnt found?
Absolutely. Where do I say anything about a knife? What is missing?
 
I have behaved in similar circumstances on the serious injury of my toddler and the death of my grandmother. Do you think I killed them? I lean on compassion and humor to get me through the situation so I dont fall completely apart. Many moments are very sad after a tragedy.
But over the hours and days your spririts can be lifted or a joke can be told to break the sadness. Sometimes it is all you have when you dont know what else to do.
To think that a photographer would be there to capure just one one smiling moment and make some infernece of injustice is crazy.

I think it was Scott Peterson's lawyer who coined the phrase that "we all grieve in different ways", yet somehow, when people are truly grieving ... they all behave in a certain similar way that has become widely understood as grieving.

Amanda and Raffaele behaved in ways that could be described as ridiculous immediately after, and in the fews days after, Meredith was murdered. One more ridiculous act, such as Knox carrying around a 12 inch knife, should not surprise anyone. The pair also presented several conflicting stories about the night of the murder such that neither of them have alibis ... memory failure attributed to smoking pot ... also ridiculous.
 
I think it was Scott Peterson's lawyer who coined the phrase that "we all grieve in different ways", yet somehow, when people are truly grieving ... they all behave in a certain similar way that has become widely understood as grieving.

BBM: that is simply not true. It's not even true within my immediate family, much less for human beings as a whole. If you judged by appearances alone, you would have said my sister and I loved my brother, but our mother did not. Yet it was our mother who cared for him for the many years he was ill; no one was closer to him than she (and vice versa).

Amanda and Raffaele behaved in ways that could be described as ridiculous immediately after, and in the fews days after, Meredith was murdered. One more ridiculous act, such as Knox carrying around a 12 inch knife, should not surprise anyone. The pair also presented several conflicting stories about the night of the murder such that neither of them have alibis ... memory failure attributed to smoking pot ... also ridiculous.

Your semantics are inexact. That you find their behavior highly inappropriate is not the same as to say an action is highly illogical--even though the word "ridiculous" may be used in either case.

If you think marijuana can't leave you with a fuzzy memory, then you haven't smoked much of it. This is particularly so if it is combined with alcohol. But, frankly, I think most of the conflicting stories arose from a the pressure of interrogation and the effort to say what the police seemed to want said.
 
Absolutely. Where do I say anything about a knife? What is missing?

I think that was just a reference to what we were discussing on the previous page and not directed at you personally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
187
Guests online
1,531
Total visitors
1,718

Forum statistics

Threads
589,942
Messages
17,928,003
Members
228,009
Latest member
chrsrb10
Back
Top