Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#5

[Myvice]

How is this in anyway comparable? Neither RG nor RS were "friends" of the victim!

For me it relates in that motive can be pretty ridiculous.

And when people can describe the scene of the crime it becomes obvious for me that they have seen it. I can't get past that. There can be no explanation for it. She was speaking English at the time.

In the Jodi Arias case, her flat affect, lying, loss of memory and inappropriate behaviour were heavily used as evidence of her borderline personality disorder.

It was her young innocent looks that saved her from the DP.

 

[SMK]

Just a case in point in terms of direct forensic evidence vs circumstantial :

There was the case here of a man who was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of his wife (Texas v David Temple).
This case had:

No DNA evidence
No fingerprint evidence
No ballistic evidence
No witnesses
No confession

All there was was:
a burglary which seemed staged (apparent forced entry looked staged)
a husband who had a girlfriend

But he was convicted, and the conviction was upheld on appeal.

So the circumstantial evidence overrode the weakness of the direct evidence (there was none).

 

[MichaelSmith]

Thank you so much. I have had similar thoughts; and yes, such a theory is effective in closing the gaps and answering some of the puzzling questions.

I also used to ponder if Knox and Sollecito had jokingly spoken of Guede raping MK and then when it occurred were horrified that he had acted on the fantasy, and realized that they had "put him up to it". I know that pot is not known to make people violent; and so in my mind I had precluded violence on their part.

I suppose at this point it is for the court to decide and if they were accessories to this murder in any way (if they feel the preponderance of evidence points toward this, as I believe it does) and to rule and sentence accordingly.

On the other hand, I do find this section of the Galati Appeal which was accepted by the Italian Supreme Court , thus overturning the Hellmann acquittal of the defendants, most interesting and telling. from the PDF which I have downloaded and forms part of my own files:

Amanda & Raffaele found out how Meredith died from Luca in the car on the way to the police statement. She cried hearing the news. The conversation in the car is in Dempsey, Follain & Burleigh.

Have a read of Luca's testimony. He saw Bastelli go into the room and lift the duvet and then he overheard Bastelli's phone call calling it in.

 

[Yellow]

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......................

You do not need a motive nor does the motive need be rational. I have watched all too many shows on ID discovery where the motive was irrational. But I think you at least need a connection between the three suspects especially given this is a circumstantial case, and I think a motive would help tie together a weak circumstantial case.

The questions no one ever answers are (in addition to the motive issue) (and I don't think anyone ever said the motive has to be reasonable, it can be unreasonable but I also think it has to be something that happened in the history of crime)

Why believe the DNA evidence when so man experts including 2 independent experts said was not up to scientific standards? Are the experts lying (all 22 of them)? Should we admit low copy DNA as evidence in criminal cases?

Why believe that knife is even the murder weapon? What evidence supports that? The marks do not fit nor they match the print of the bloody knife. Why not? If that is not the murder weapon, the DNA (or lack of it) is irrelevant. You need proof this is the murder weapon. In fact, there was DNA on the knife (AK) but not blood. How possibly could you stab someone 46 times yet leave no evidence of blood on the stabbing object?

How come no evidence of AK or RS in the murder room? Do people think she just directed the cutting from the hallway? Do they think she actually did the stabbing? Do they think she cleaned everything up yet left all RG's evidence?

What connection between the suspects? Are they lying about knowing each other? Did AK and RS just happen to walk in and join in on the crime with someone they hardly know?

This case would be more believable if RG was not involved. Then possibly it could be a jealousy situation, maybe RS said MK was pretty, etc. But RG's very evident involvement in this case makes it more complicated that just a girl jealous of her roommate (which I don't believe, but I am just supposing), RG had a clear modus operandi that he followed to a T in this case. He broke in, tried to steal, or rape and then murder. Very simple case. Believing a scenario where you have RG breaking in and then the jealousy thing or sex game all at the same time is what it hard to think AK or RS were involved.

 

[SMK]

Another thing which I found impressive within Galati's appeal to the Supreme Court:

He clarifies why some of Knox's subsequent behavior is evidential and important:

"Amanda’s behaviour, after the discovery of the crime is highly indicative. The Court has without reason excluded the relevance of post delictum behaviour of the two defendants, affirming that individual reactions to extreme traumatic circumstances are uncountable (see CAA judgment p 136).

It escapes the Court that in this [79] case the discussion is not about emotional reactions in the presence of traumatic events, which cannot always be interpreted unambiguously, but of Ms Knox’s claims which demonstrate her having an awareness of the details of the murder: body partially concealed by a blanket, with a foot that was sticking out [from the blanket]70; blood in the room; deep wound on the neck; death after a long agony and above all, the murder happened in front of the closet to the right of Meredith’s bed.

All these details have been subsequently verified by the findings of the judicial police.71

The reference to the subjectivity of emotional reactions is misleading and, followingan ill-concealed innocentista72desire, constitutes an attempt to, once again, justify the accused [=Amanda]. The CAA has not noticed that the statements by Ms Knox were referring to substantially true circumstances, which she would not have been able to know if the alibi had been proven true."

 

[dgfred]

She must not have been sad for very long... the way they acted a short time later.

At least from Meredith's friends and LE's reported views.

 

[SMK]

Amanda & Raffaele found out how Meredith died from Luca in the car on the way to the police statement. She cried hearing the news. The conversation in the car is in Dempsey, Follain & Burleigh.

Have a read of Luca's testimony. He saw Bastelli go into the room and lift the duvet and then he overheard Bastelli's phone call calling it in.

and I just posted about Galati's genius in this regard: :blushing: :tantrum:

 

[SMK]

This case would be more believable if RG was not involved. Then possibly it could be a jealousy situation, maybe RS said MK was pretty, etc.

Absolutely, if I were an editor and this were a fictional novel, I would say, "that Guede character has got to go. He is messing up the plot. If you want the lovebirds as killers, get rid of that Guede."

 

[SMK]

Amanda & Raffaele found out how Meredith died from Luca in the car on the way to the police statement. She cried hearing the news. The conversation in the car is in Dempsey, Follain & Burleigh.

Have a read of Luca's testimony. He saw Bastelli go into the room and lift the duvet and then he overheard Bastelli's phone call calling it in.

why is Galati in the dark about this?????? :tantrum:

 

[redheadedgal]

So the circumstantial evidence overrode the weakness of the direct evidence (there was none).

incorrect...

With no DNA evidence, no eyewitnesses, no murder weapon and no incriminating fingerprints linking David Temple to the crime, years passed until 2004, when Scott Peterson was convicted of killing his pregnant wife in a trial that captured the nation’s attention. The similarities in both murders gave authorities a renewed confidence in their circumstantial case against David. Prosecutor Kelly Siegler finally got some forensic evidence, when after years of laboratory snafus and delays; a critical FBI report came back and indicated traces of gunshot residue on David’s jacket.

http://www.wetv.com/shows/48-hours/episodes/season-3/the-guessing-game

 

[Yellow]

Just a case in point in terms of direct forensic evidence vs circumstantial :

There was the case here of a man who was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of his wife (Texas v David Temple).
This case had:

No DNA evidence
No fingerprint evidence
No ballistic evidence
No witnesses
No confession

All there was was:
a burglary which seemed staged (apparent forced entry looked staged)
a husband who had a girlfriend

But he was convicted, and the conviction was upheld on appeal.

So the circumstantial evidence overrode the weakness of the direct evidence (there was none).

Yes, circumstantial cases generally need a motive, here in that case you mention they had a strong motive - wanted to be w the girlfriend. That is why you can get over lack of direct evidence w a strong motive.

That is why it is relevant to the knox case because if you had a strong motive ( or at least any motive - I do not see anyone offering any at all even unreasonable ones that would explain the involvement of all 3 suspects and the connection between them - no one explains that) you would have a much tighter circumstantial cases. If you want someone to connect the dots, prosecutors need to give them some motive even an unreasonable one instead of just punting on the issue all the time. Why punt on motive if the connection between the dots is so strong so as to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Of course you don't need to prove motive but it is hard to make a circumstantial case without at least giving possibilities of a motive.

 

[MichaelSmith]

why is Galati in the dark about this?????? :tantrum:

Because he's clueless or deceptive or both.

 

[dgfred]

Why try to prove a motive that is totally unknown if your case is solid already? Especially if you don't have to.

Then there is a small chance that since you didn't know the motive for sure... the defense can show in some way that it is not the one. Then the solid case is gone most likely IMO.

 

[otto]

The most persuasive piece of evidence against her is already excluded - the alleged confession/false statement to police. Then you have the DNA - and the "excuse" to exclude that is VERY strong - many experts, including 2 independents experts- said it is not reliable.

Without those 2 - one of which is already excluded and the other one of which would make the Italian justice system look pretty silly not to exclude - you are left with a very weak circumstantial case. For such a case to work, juries want a motive, you don't have that here, you would have to believe someone decides to join a murder with a perfect stranger just for kicks. I am not sure if that ever happened before especially where there is not already a motive for murder like competing for same guy, etc.

It's quite possible that the convictions will be overturned.

Murders are committed for kicks - thrill kill. I believe is the motive for this murder. It is consistent with everything else Knox says about being in Europe and wanting to push all the boundaries.

 

[Yellow]

Absolutely, if I were an editor and this were a fictional novel, I would say, "that Guede character has got to go. He is messing up the plot. If you want the lovebirds as killers, get rid of that Guede."

I also think that is why the American media is so pro Amanda. If it was only RS and AK, I think there would be more ambiguity about their involvement. Still do not think prosecutors could make out a case against them but the story would be cleaner, I.e., prosecutors could say RS liked MK, etc. And then if the murder remained unsolved, that would leave more ambiguity, at least to those who do not follow the case.

But the media got their culprit and he was a perfect accuser to fit the story of a nice white british girl sitting home alone being attacked by a black man. And his DNA was all over. Case solved. So I think RG there helped AK and RS alot in the american media because the murder got solved.

It is just so hard to imagine any scenario that explains the involvement of all 3, especially given the lack of connection before hand.

 

[dgfred]

why is Galati in the dark about this?????? :tantrum:

Isn't everybody? That would make every judge that ignored this as how AK knew information about how Meredith died and in what area 'in the dark'. :facepalm:

IIRC the friends said RS/AK were acting strange... and they checked their car for hidden evidence after they got out. The friends did not say she had ....... bled to death for sure. AK did.

 

[Yellow]

It's quite possible that the convictions will be overturned.

Murders are committed for kicks - thrill kill. I believe is the motive for this murder. It is consistent with everything else Knox says about being in Europe and wanting to push all the boundaries.

Like I said it would be more believeable if AK and RS were alone and RG was not involved. I don't see how you get to a thrill kill to explain the involvement on all three. You would need all three to have a preexisting relationship or you would need for AK and RS to just spontaneously decide "hey look he's killing her, let us join in too!" Without any evidence of AK ever being violent or interested in violent *advertiser censored*,etc.

And wanting to push boundaries such as having some sex and smoking pot is a far far far crime from committing murder, I would venture to guess that 99% of Americans going in foreign study "push boundaries" by doing the exact same things as AK.

 

[Yellow]

Why try to prove a motive that is totally unknown if your case is solid already? Especially if you don't have to.

Then there is a small chance that since you didn't know the motive for sure... the defense can show in some way that it is not the one. Then the solid case is gone most likely IMO.

Yes, but how is this case solid once the DNA evidence was discredited by so many experts, they never proved the murder weapon and the statement ruled inadmissible? One could make out a circumstantial case but I think you need to show what the relationship was between the three.

If AK and RS DNA was in that room or maybe even if that statement got in maybe you would not need motive. But with a weak circumstantial case, you have to at least lay out some possibilities.

 

[Footwarrior]

The case against Amanda and Raffaele isn't solid. It's an off the wall theory of a crime that doesn't make a bit of sense.

Two young lovers, AK and RS, that have only known each other for eight days unexpectedly find they have the night free. But rather than spend the time alone together, driven by the effects of smoking marijuana they seek out RG, a third person that AK barely knows and RS has never met. The two then convince RG to join them in the torture and murder of AK's roommate MK.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Isn't everybody? That would make every judge that ignored this as how AK knew information about how Meredith died and in what area 'in the dark'. :facepalm:

IIRC the friends said RS/AK were acting strange... and they checked their car for hidden evidence after they got out. The friends did not say she had ....... bled to death for sure. AK did.

It's not in Massei because it wasn't an issue.

No they didn't check their car for hidden evidence.