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

[SMK]

Otto, thank you for enumerating all: Very impressive . I went back in my mind to the period in which I was absorbing all of the pro-innocence literature, and recalled all their explanations (rationalizations?) and noted them in red next to each item:

• Bloody foot print attributed to Sollecito in the bathroom: It's Guede's.
• Sollecito DNA confirmed on the bra clasp DNA transfer/contamination
• Knox DNA/Meredith blood confirmed in small bathroom, hallway, Knox bedroom, Filomina's bedroom She lived there; the blood fell on top of older DNA
• Meredith DNA confirmed on knife Transfer/not the murder weapon
• Knox/Sollecito changed alibis several times - each one being demonstrated as a lie using independent information Confused kids; drugs, police intimidation
• 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 She forgot
• Knox lied when she accused Mr Lumumba of murder. She did this in an attempt to redirect the police investigation away from her. She was harassed and exhausted; they pushed the idea of Lumumba on her (from seeing his number and text on her cell) ; she assented to please them.
• 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 They wanted a romantic time uninterrupted
• Knox and Sollecito claimed that they slept until 10:30 am. Cell records prove that to be untrue. Are you sure? Maybe they forgot.
• Sollecito fabricated a story to place Meredith in his apartment to explain Meredith's DNA on the knife He was paranoid from pot withdrawal and also pricked his lawyer with a pen, but his attorney said that "this was not a problem"
• Staged break-in with room ransacked and broken glass on top of ransacked items (eye witness testimony) No staging; Hendry proved Lone Wolf break-in
• Unusual timing of phone calls from Knox to each of Meredith's phones So???
• Failure of Knox to tell Filomina that she had already called Meredith's phone when Filomina asked her to contact Meredith She was nervous.
• Failure to contact police after finding front door open, broken window, blood until after the arrival of the Postal Police She was frazzled and comprehension came more slowly than the Cababinieri.:seeya:
• Knox claim that Meredith routinely locked her bedroom door so police should not break door down She got mixed up
• Strange story about the mop and bathmat boogie It makes perfect sense

 

[SMK]

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.

It doesn't make sense, but I recall the interview very vividly. She claimed this was her biggest regret, but that she could "only move from here forward" henceforth. I suppose she meant a day of denial? I really don't know.

 

[Amber29]

The time change does not matter, what comodi did was normal for any lawyer. If amanda had remembered placing a call to her mother at all before Meredith was discovered, she could've easily corrected comodi and said I don't know the time but the first call I made to my mother was before the postal police arrived.

Instead her answer was I don't remember that call and precedes to testify that the first call she made to her mom was tell her about finding Meredith's body. Which we all know due to time of the call is NOT true.

This call does not make her guilty but adds to the holes in Amanda's story.

 

[SMK]

The time change does not matter, what comodi did was normal for any lawyer. If amanda had remembered placing a call to her mother at all before Meredith was discovered, she could've easily corrected comodi and said I don't know the time but the first call I made to my mother was before the postal police arrived.

Instead her answer was I don't remember that call and precedes to testify that the first call she made to her mom was tell her about finding Meredith's body. Which we all know due to time of the call is NOT true.

This call does not make her guilty but adds to the holes in Amanda's story.

That is putting it well (bbm)

 

[miley]

Where is the murder weapon?

Way on the far right, is that it?

http://tinyurl.com/krl7vdd

 

[Nova]

Please look over the Kent Heiholt case (if you choose to), there is a thread on here. It's about Ryan Ferguson, you might have heard of him in the news recently. He was just released because his conviction was overturned, and he spent 10 years in prison. He was convicted on 2 witness accounts, both of whom later admitted they were lying. There was absolutely NO OTHER EVIDENCE tying him to the crime. He was convicted and spent TEN YEARS in prison before being released on the decision of a high court.....and that is in the U.S.A.. THere was far, far, far less evidence in that case than in this one. A lot of DNA was found at the crime scene, none matching his. There was hair found, shoeprints, fingerprints, etc.. None matched his. There was no connection with the victim (State claimed it was a robbery gone bad). State claimed he stole the money to coninue drinking at the nearby bar he was at, even though the bar closed 50 minutes before Kent was murdered. His car was searched and nothing found. The 2 witnesses were lying....one is a confused friend who was blacked-out drunk that night and thought (2 years later) he might have been the one to commit the murder because of a "dream" he had. He later admitted that he brought Ryan into the story because he was scared in the moment to be the only one taking the "blame." No one still knows whether he really believes he himself did it based on the dream, or what is going on in his mind. The other "witness" was a janitor who originally stated he saw two white men walking around that time, but couldn't see their faces clearly. Then this witness did something which put him in jail. There he got a visit from a prosector in the Kent case, a fact which was not disclosed to the defense. All of a sudden, the "witness" can suddenly clearly reemember Ryan's face and pointed him out in court. He later admitted he was lying becvause he thought it would help him get a lighter sentence for his own problems.

This is what got him convicted, by a jury in a supposedly fair trial, in the U.S.A..

Not only was he arrested, he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 40 years in prison. And he spent 10 years in prison before being released due to the overturning of the conviction. All based on, as it turns out, nothing.

Is this supposed to make AK look guiltier? Shouldn't the Ferguson case make us all the more skeptical of the supposed "evidence" used to convict AK and RS?

 

[redheadedgal]

Ok great glad to know your thoughts concerning the sites.

also, the IIP site contains a lovely page in honor of, and about, meredith.

otoh, one repeatedly linked site just bashes AK and RS:

--booze, boys, and benders
--knox, are you aware that psychologists are observing you very skeptically?
--book flop
--the overexposure of the accused
--curt knox's hatchet men
--sollecito's crazed rant
--stupid claims by RS
--a photoshopped picture of RS as hannibal lector
--"a radioactive amanda"

so, very different... one classy, one definitely not. this speaks volumes imo.

 

[miley]

If the break in was similar, then why didn't Guede use the grate on the downstairs door as a ladder, climb onto the balcony and break in that way? That's what he had done in the past.

Because he decided to use the grate on the other side to climb in the window modifying what he had done in the past. In three of the break-ins connected to Rudy, the homes were accessed through a window.
My understanding, Tramontano left his window open and Rudy didn't realize he and his girlfriend were in the room sleeping.

When Tramontano looked down from his loft bed, he saw a young man going through his belongings. Tramontano chased the man downstairs as he tried to escape, but the front door was locked. The thief -- who Tramontano identified as Guede -- first used a chair to keep Tramontano at a distance, and then pulled out a switchblade knife. Guede, who escaped, had stolen a 5 euro bill and three credit cards. http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7946289&page=2​

robbery for 5 euros, that's a pretty desperate act in my opinion.
So out of these three break-in's, in at least two, entry was gained through a second floor window.

Then of course he left and they somehow correctly guessed his 2nd story window breaking with a rock MO and staged the crime scene looking awfully similar to burglary he's linked to just a week or two earlier.

I don't understand how this can be ignored - how can anyone not see this - Rudy uses the same method, over and over, how would Amanda and Raph know this.

 

[aa9511]

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.

Excellent post, Otto. And re: bolded part, defenses in the U.S. do the same thing. They will throw anything up and see what sticks. If that means claiming the evidence process was tainted, or the jury selection was unfair, or the prosecutor made some mistake, or whatever, they'll say it. So I don't see what is so unusual about what Amanda's defense did or tried to do. There's a big difference between the defense claiming something and it actually being true.

 

[aa9511]

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?

Re: bolded

I always go back to what Juan Martinez said in his closing - that beyond a reasonable doubt means that you are firmly convinced of the person's guilt. I find that to be the simplest explanation I've heard thus far.

 

[aa9511]

Is this supposed to make AK look guiltier? Shouldn't the Ferguson case make us all the more skeptical of the supposed "evidence" used to convict AK and RS?

It's meant to counter the claim that the Italian justice system is messed up and doesn't work. And that if this case was in the U.S., there would not be enough to even arrest Amanda, much less go to trial.

I was pointing out that there have been people in the U.S. locked up in prison for years and years, if not their lifetimes, on much less evidence than is in this case. So the claim that it could "never happen in the U.S." is plain wrong.

I was also illustrating how, in contrast to what evidence they had on Ryan Ferguson, there is much more evidence there against Amanda. Ryan only had witness accounts against him.....NO circumstantial evidence whatsover, and absolutely NO physical evidence. Contrast that to Amanda's case, where there is loads of circumanstial, as well as a substantial amount of physical evidence.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Are you thinking that the prosecutor should be helping Knox with her testimony? Knox phoned her mother at 12:47 before anything had happened. That is the point. If the prosecutor said noon, or 12, how is that a problem? Knox is supposed to be telling the truth, so she should have said that she called her mother at 12:47 before anything happened because ______________. Anything less can be interpreted as deception.

Every prosecutor is eager to cross examine a suspect. It is normal that a prosecutor will attempt to catch the suspect in a lie. It is the responsibility of the suspect to tell the truth, thereby not getting caught in a lie. Too bad for Knox if she was mixed up during cross examination.

A missing Meredith and discovering Guede's break-in is not "before anything had happened" imo

 

[otto]

also, the IIP site contains a lovely page in honor of, and about, meredith.

otoh, one repeatedly linked site just bashes AK and RS:

--booze, boys, and benders
--knox, are you aware that psychologists are observing you very skeptically?
--book flop
--the overexposure of the accused
--curt knox's hatchet men
--sollecito's crazed rant
--stupid claims by RS
--a photoshopped picture of RS as hannibal lector
--"a radioactive amanda"

so, very different... one classy, one definitely not. this speaks volumes imo.

Does the booze bender refer to the party where Knox was fined for guests throwing rocks at cars? Did her book flop? I don't really understand most of the points.

Did Sollecito have a crazed rant? If so when? Why does a salesman like Curt need hatchet men? What are "hatchet men"?

 

[otto]

Excellent post, Otto. And re: bolded part, defenses in the U.S. do the same thing. They will throw anything up and see what sticks. If that means claiming the evidence process was tainted, or the jury selection was unfair, or the prosecutor made some mistake, or whatever, they'll say it. So I don't see what is so unusual about what Amanda's defense did or tried to do. There's a big difference between the defense claiming something and it actually being true.

The defense did that in this case as well. Piece by piece, a different excuse was produced for each piece of evidence, but never has the big picture been addressed. There's no tie-in that explains all of the excuses in one neat package without alleging that the entire judicial system of an EU country is wrong ... from the Postal Police to the Supreme Court.

We read that the crime scene is a couple of feet on either side of the body but in reality it is the entire cottage, that there is no evidence of Knox in the bedroom even though her lamp, the only light source from her bedroom, is on the floor of Meredith's bedroom. Apparently Knox's DNA is not on Knox's lamp in the bedroom of the crime scene - but it should be. In this case, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In this defense, evidence is individually explained as fruit pulp, the wrong size, coercion, contaminated, no double testing (not entirely uncommon), incompetence, stress, confusion, memory wipes, imaginings and last, but not least, flashbacks. As a package, what does it look like? Either she's involved in the murder or she's not, but how many different excuses does one need to explain that much evidence ... apparently a lot.

The defense has made several claims that are half truths. There is no explanation for the absence of visible barefoot prints anywhere except on the bath mat. Where did they go? Why were they clearly visible using luminol after the optimal time interval?

 

[otto]

Re: bolded

I always go back to what Juan Martinez said in his closing - that beyond a reasonable doubt means that you are firmly convinced of the person's guilt. I find that to be the simplest explanation I've heard thus far.

I would venture:

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is having no reason to doubt, being unable to think of a reason to disbelieve ... go beyond that and double check ... firmly convinced, as you say.

 

[otto]

It's meant to counter the claim that the Italian justice system is messed up and doesn't work. And that if this case was in the U.S., there would not be enough to even arrest Amanda, much less go to trial.

I was pointing out that there have been people in the U.S. locked up in prison for years and years, if not their lifetimes, on much less evidence than is in this case. So the claim that it could "never happen in the U.S." is plain wrong.

I was also illustrating how, in contrast to what evidence they had on Ryan Ferguson, there is much more evidence there against Amanda. Ryan only had witness accounts against him.....NO circumstantial evidence whatsover, and absolutely NO physical evidence. Contrast that to Amanda's case, where there is loads of circumanstial, as well as a substantial amount of physical evidence.

There is no direct evidence, but there is more circumstantial evidence than just the DNA. It's odd that Sollecito was relieved that Knox's DNA was found on the alleged murder weapon. Isn't that what the prosecution has been saying all along? Confirming that fact did not subtract all other evience.

I guess this appeal court can look at all evidence and proceedings to date, and again decide what to include and exclude from the decision. Hellman apparently attempted to exclude too much of the evidence, so that won't likely happen again, especially if the Supreme Court ruled that too much evidence was overlooked ... which it did.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Miracle ear lady, Nara's testimony is worth having a look at.

She only contacted police weeks later on Nov 26 and gave her statement Nov 27 yet she admits to watching all the action at the cottage on Nov 2 and seeing the media, police cars and ambulance arrive. If I'm reading it right, Nara says all this happened at 11am but we know it was after 1pm but then she says it happened at 9.30am.

Nara was on medication and "heard" the scream through double glazed windows. She admits to not remembering a whole host of things including what type job her daughter got. She finally says maybe it was on a farm. She starts imploding by page 48 when Bongiorno starts asking if maybe she heard the scream the night before on Halloween and Nara says she could even hear running through the weeds (probably means grass)

Absolutely worthless and not a credible witness at all but according to the Supreme Court she should be used to determine time of death. Unreal!

 

[otto]

A missing Meredith and discovering Guede's break-in is not "before anything had happened" imo

Knox first phoned her mother at 12:47 pm on November 2, 2007. It was a Friday. It was 4:47 am in Seattle. Knox woke up her mother with the phone call. They spoke for 88 seconds. It doesn't matter what time was quoted during trial, the question was related to the circumstances surrounding the phone call, not whether is was 12 noon or 12:47 lunch.

When Knox's mother attempted to bring up this 12:47 phone call during a prison visit, Knox cut her off and it was agreed that it was stress. Stress interfered with her ability to remember the phone call.

At the time that Knox first phoned her mother:

• she went to the cottage around 10:30 or 11 am,
• found the frount door wide open in 50 degree temperatures,
• left the door unlocked even though the wind blew it open
• had a shower,
• did the naked bath mat boogie,
• blow dried her hair,
• saw the feces,
• went to Sollecito's with a mop,
• had lunch,
• mentioned the feces,
• presumably cleaned up the water spill from 16 hours earlier,
• Sollecito suggested they walk to the cottage to check out the feces rather than get the car and swing by on their way to Gubbio.
• They are at the cottage.
• Knox phones her mother the first time.

Second Phone Call:

• Knox shows Sollecito the scene,
• Sollecito attempts to break down Meredith's door,
• Knox runs around the cottage in a panic - leaning over the balcony trying to see Meredith's bedroom window,
• they are at the door when the Postal Police arrive,
• Filomina and friends arrive,
• Knox give tour to Postal Police and Filomina/Friends, starting with feces
• Knox/Sollecito go into Knox's bedroom,
• they phone family/friends,
• they phone Carabinieri.
• That was the second phone call.

What happened next:

• Filomina insisted that they break down Meredith's bedroom door
• The door was already cracked by Sollecito
• Knox insists that Meredith routinely locked her bedroom door
• Filomina agrees to cover the costs for the broken door
• Knox/Sollecito have moved from her bedroom to the kitchen
• Postal Police break door
• Body is discovered
• Knox is directed out the exterior door by Sollecito

After they left the crime scene:

• Filomina's friends checked their car after driving Sollecito and Knox to the police station because they were afraid that evidence was left in their vehicle
• Knox talks about Meredith f-ing bleeding to death at the police station.
• Knox is sitting on Sollecito's lap, sticking out her tongue

Knox writies that wanting to kll for a pizza is inappropriate

 

[otto]

Nothing had happened when Knox phoned her mother the first time. Nothing that she had seen that morning at the cottage concerned her, other than the feces but, at the same time, the water spill from sixteen hours earlier was a bigger concern.

The bloody footprints in the hall could not be seen without the luminol. If the blood was visible, it would have given her a bigger reason to be concerned. Someone must have done something to make the bloody footprints to and from the bathmat disappear. Who could that be? Who would have any interest in eliminating evidence of a murder? Who could stage a break-in? Who had a key?

 

[otto]

Miracle ear lady, Nara's testimony is worth having a look at.

She only contacted police weeks later on Nov 26 and gave her statement Nov 27 yet she admits to watching all the action at the cottage on Nov 2 and seeing the media, police cars and ambulance arrive. If I'm reading it right, Nara says all this happened at 11am but we know it was after 1pm but then she says it happened at 9.30am.

Nara was on medication and "heard" the scream through double glazed windows. She admits to not remembering a whole host of things including what type job her daughter got. She finally says maybe it was on a farm. She starts imploding by page 48 when Bongiorno starts asking if maybe she heard the scream the night before on Halloween and Nara says she could even hear running through the weeds (probably means grass)

Absolutely worthless and not a credible witness at all but according to the Supreme Court she should be used to determine time of death. Unreal!

Meredith wasn't murdered at 9 AM ... what does 9:30 AM and 11 AM have to do with the case?. We don't know when Meredith was murdered, but we do know that it is between 9 PM, when she returned home from her dinner with friends, and shortly after midnight, when her father called her and the phone pinged down the road.

In a Colorado case of two murdered children, a relevant tip came in months later. The fact that one ear witness to the scream reported it two weeks after the murder is irrelevant. If there was no scream, why have so many independent parties, including Knox, reported the scream?