For a largely circumstantial case, you need a motive or at least a plausible tie between the defendants. Here you have neither. That has nothing to do with what is reasonable behavior or how I or you would act. It has to do with what we know about crime in general, and I don't think there has ever been a case in which 3 people, 2 of which only met 1 time in a casual encounter, decide to murder someone, where there is no preexising issue like jealously, sex, revenge, etc. between the defendants and the poor victim. If there is a case where 3 strangers decide to murder someone where there is no preexising issue w the victim, I would like to know. Murdering for kicks sometimes happens with a lone male or 2 males and is often pre planned. Most times women are involved in a murder they are alone or they do it as part of a couple. I never heard of a case where a women goes w her boyfriend of 7 days and a stranger to murder someone out of the blue one day.
Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#5
- Thread starter Harmony 2
- Start date
New Posts
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #182- Latest: girlhasnoname
-
FL FL - Iyana Sawyer, 16, pregnant, Jacksonville, 19 Dec 2018 *uncle GUILTY*
- Latest: imstilla.grandma
- Status
For a largely circumstantial case, you need a motive or at least a plausible tie between the defendants. Here you have neither. That has nothing to do with what is reasonable behavior or how I or you would act. It has to do with what we know about crime in general, and I don't think there has ever been a case in which 3 people, 2 of which only met 1 time in a casual encounter, decide to murder someone, where there is no preexising issue like jealously, sex, revenge, etc. between the defendants and the poor victim. If there is a case where 3 strangers decide to murder someone where there is no preexising issue w the victim, I would like to know. Murdering for kicks sometimes happens with a lone male or 2 males and is often pre planned. Most times women are involved in a murder they are alone or they do it as part of a couple. I never heard of a case where a women goes w her boyfriend of 7 days and a stranger to murder someone out of the blue one day.
No, it can't be dismissed. I think in any murder case, when a suspect knows what they "couldn't have known", it is very compelling. When you read the entire Galati appeal, it is quite impressive, and makes understandable the overturning of Hellmann.
Nova
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 19,648
- Reaction score
- 4,628
I'm guessing you only speak English. (Sorry, mods. Sometimes the word "you" is unavoidable.)
This isn't to disparage you. I'm only fluent in English myself. But I've spoken enough French and Spanish to appreciate the barrage of sound that greets one when one is learning a new language. A few weeks in country is not enough time to sort out all the words.
Sure, if you were given the word for "locked" or "unlocked" by itself, you might know it, but that isn't how words come at you in a conversation. The sounds run together and it isn't always easy to know whether the syllable indicating the negative applies to the word before it or after it or to an entire phrase or sentence.
I very respectfully disagree. First of all, we do not have to know what the motive was. Please see my post right above this regarding that point. Respectfully, I think this idea that Amanda could not possibly have done this because what motive does she have to join in a murder, stems a lot from the fact that she's a white, college-educated female. We just can't "see" her doing something so awful, and so it's easier to excuse away the evidence. And I would propose that that is just as bad as "lowering" the standard of DNA admission, if that really happened.
Also, so Rudy had such a great motive to stab and sexually assault a young girl?? For some money? How much money would be worth it for you or I or a reasonable person to do something like that? See what I mean. What Rudy did does not make sense either if we view him as a reasonable person. Which he is not. If I told you today, that hey I think I'm gonna go stab someone to death for a few bucks, would that make any sense? No, to a reasonable person of course not!!!!!
Same way we don't know if RS and Amanda participated in the murder of Meredith in some way. If they did, they are not reasonable people and we cannot see them or their actions as such. That's why it's useful to just look at the evidence and to try to block the mind from any preconceptions, such as an innocent-looking White girl from Seattle could never do something like that.
Myvice
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,482
- Reaction score
- 2,891
The West Virginia case of the murder of Skylar Neese seems to show that there doesn't need to be much of a motive and that people that smoke pot can and do kill people.
They were also high school kids...two on one. Senseless!!
They were also high school kids...two on one. Senseless!!
Well then let's alert the record-keepers to add this case to their books.
Nova
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 19,648
- Reaction score
- 4,628
I think it they were to focus on all the various details we have been discussing, the judges would conclude some definite involvement at least. The problem is, how far did that involvement go; was it peripheral or premeditated, and how firmly is it proven might possibly be a stumbling block.
Additionally, doubts about the forensic evidence, coupled with diverse explanations on the part of the defense as well as some errors which were made (or at least were purported to be made ) on the prosecution's part, may make them waver when it comes to a firm commitment involving these two young people. Of course, that is just the negative view, but I am one to always take the worst and best case scenarios and compare them.I still wager the ruling is up in the air at this point....
BBM: SMK, with respect, I think that's the "where there's smoke there's fire" argument and it is a logical fallacy. The fact that some posters and tabloid writers have devoted years to demonizing AK and RS makes them no more guilty than they were at the time of the murder.
As for what the appellate panel is thinking, I won't hazard a guess.
Thanks - I had not heard of this case but now that I googled it, I see what you mean:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...dered-didnt-want-to-be-friends_n_3377636.html
It is very sad, but what RG did happens probably every day even here in the US. Man breaks in women's home, wants to rape her and maybe steal some stuff. All too common scenario, Rudy was either going there to steal and was startled by MK and the murder was the result of a rape gone bad or he went there intending to rape MK (maybe he saw her walking home alone), or maybe even rape amanda, she fought back courageously and he pulled a knife on her thinking she would comply, he went berserk and stabbed her. As I mentioned, that same scenario happens all too often. There are many crimes that fit that same exact pattern, thousands probably.
To put AK and RS in the mix, you would have to imagine a scenario that in my knowledge never happened in the history of crime. You would have to assume that they all are lying about knowing each other, that they met up and decided to go to the cottage and play sex games. Or you would have to imagine that Rudy breaks in (which is what the rock evidence shows), attacks MK, AK and RS decide they will get in on the act and start stabbing her too, even though they do not really know the stabber and they -especially RS- have no reason to stab the victim.
The first scenario is a little more plausible, but I think you would need evidence of some pre existing relationship, of which there is none. The second scenario borders on a lifetime movie, as I never heard of anything like that ever happening,
Is there another scenario that explains it?
Why do people believe the DNA evidence? Do they think all those experts including the independent experts are just lying? At the very least I don't see how even if you accept disagreement among experts, that does not raise reasonable doubt- and that would be sufficient to doubt the DNA in my mind
Then what are you left with? Evidence that explains a goofy kid or possibly the scenario described above where they were there, but passed out/stoned and that is why there are lies. I don't think you can get to a scenario where there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I have always respected your posting , Nova, and I still maintain respect for many pro-innocence (for want of a better term ) advocates . I certainly am against demonizing these two; I have zero interest in tabloid trash and people who enjoy unleashing hate on handy targets.
My interest is only in truth and justice. I think there is evidence they were involved, but if the judges decide there is not enough to convict, I will not complain. I was impressed with Hellmann but am also impressed with some of the rigorous logic Galati employed which led to his overturning. I hope justice will prevail: If they are innocent, then of course I would want them acquitted. But I have doubts..... We shall see.....:seeya:
And Amanda's race actually hurt her here, if she a black or Latina American, sad to say, but this story would never have gotten the media attraction it did because stories about white girls sells magazines and ad times.
I could not imagine anyone doing what AK is accused of doing because to my knowledge it has never happened before. And there is no evidence it happened here. There is no evidence of any sex games, no texts, etc, no evidence of a pre existing relationship. If there was I would buy it. But there is no evidence of anything sexual between MK and AK or RS. none at all
And of course murderers are not reasonable. But one has to think whether the scenario is something reasonable based on the evidence. What Rudy did happens all the time, and the exact situation MK went through is what every women alone fears because it happens all too often.
I could not imagine anyone doing what AK is accused of doing because to my knowledge it has never happened before. And there is no evidence it happened here. There is no evidence of any sex games, no texts, etc, no evidence of a pre existing relationship. If there was I would buy it. But there is no evidence of anything sexual between MK and AK or RS. none at all
And of course murderers are not reasonable. But one has to think whether the scenario is something reasonable based on the evidence. What Rudy did happens all the time, and the exact situation MK went through is what every women alone fears because it happens all too often.
Nova
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 19,648
- Reaction score
- 4,628
Murderers may or may not be rational, but "rational" (or "reasonable" when used as a synonym) implies reason shared with most others.
But even the looniest killer does things for his or her own reasons. Loony reasons, maybe, but reasons nonetheless.
Footwarrior
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2011
- Messages
- 2,236
- Reaction score
- 1,036
There is no reasonable motive for Amanda or Raffaele to murder Meredith. Nor are there signs of the kind of severe mental illness that drives a murder without a motive.
Rudy on the other hand had a motive. He was caught in the act of committing a crime and wanted to escape. A few weeks before, Rudy had been discovered inside a Perugia home and pulled a knife on the homeowner. He had already proved he was willing to use force to avoid being caught.
Meredith died when a burglary escalated into a murder.
The timeline makes this even more clear. The meal Meredith had consumed at 6:30 pm would have started to pass into her duodenum a maximum of 3 hours later, but she died before that happened. She arrived home just after 9 pm and almost certainly died before 9:30 pm.
During this time, Amanda and Raffaele were at his place watching the movie "Amalie" that ended at 9:10 pm. They started an anime short at 9:26 pm.
bbm
I am trying to not go too much into this motive debate because I feel like I really am not in the position to understand a murderer's mentality, and as I said a few times before, they don't need a motive to decide this case. And I think it's very dangerous to start assigning the standard that a reasonable motive has to be present in murders.....because that would set free a whole heck of a lot of future murderers who will never be able to get convicted of a crime they committed......................
No, it is not comparable. But it illustrates an irrational murder (lacking a rational motive, such as life insurance money).
bbm
To find those reasons means we have to go into the killer's mind and be able to think what they were thinking at the time. And we would have to, essentially, become the killer in order to adopt his/her world view and values and way he views things and his moral compass and his psychology.
No thanks, I'd rather look at the evidence to decide rather than try to rationalize the reasons for why they did what they did.
That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me, Nova. :blushing:
- Status