Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #13

[SMK]

I think that if Amanda were on trial for murder in Seattle, she would (hopefully) have understood the importance of dressing in a more formal/neutral manner. There was something about her attitude from the beginning, and throughout the trial, that suggested she either didn't take the Italian justice system seriously, or she thought that she could do whatever she wanted without consequences. I think it's unfortunate that she was not counselled in the importance of appearances.

Even if Amanda and Raffaele insist that they were at his apt the entire time, everything that they said they did was proven untrue through electronic records. If they went to sleep at 9:30 PM (after leaving the cottage at 4 PM, smoking a joint, eating dinner, having sex, having a shower, watching a movie), why were they still sleeping at 10 AM the following morning per their alibis? They haven't been able to account for the time even if they were at his apt.

OK. Well, I have read that electronic records are on their side: They show computer activity as late as 9:26 pm, and TOD may have been 9:30. I do not know why Knox's counsel did not advice her on dress and demeanor. I think she was trying to come off like a fairey-like, wispy, airy thing---and it was not the right tack to take.

 

[otto]

I think it might depend a lot on where she was tried. Courts in some jurisdictions would be more skeptical of bogus evidence than others. The Southeastern states and rural areas have much higher conviction rates.

But it's basically true that odds here are heavily slanted in favor of the prosecution; there's something like a 90%+ conviction rate for cases that go to trial.

The Cooper trial was certainly an eye opener in terms of what was required to qualify as an expert in specific information, how much defense testimony was denied on the basis of legal technicalities, how much testimony was ignored by the jury, and how the jury appeared to make the critical decision based on one piece of evidence. The conviction of Knox and Raffaele was similar in that the decision came down to very little information ... and it was not the staged break in.

We see the Knox Sollecito families doing exactly what happens everywhere ... insisting that their relative is innocent to the bitter end. They set up websites and initiate media campaigns ... just like Scott Peterson's family.

 

[SMK]

The Cooper trial was certainly an eye opener in terms of what was required to qualify as an expert in specific information, how much defense testimony was denied on the basis of legal technicalities, how much testimony was ignored by the jury, and how the jury appeared to make the critical decision based on one piece of evidence. The conviction of Knox and Raffaele was similar in that the decision came down to very little information ... and it was not the staged break in.

We see the Knox Sollecito families doing exactly what happens everywhere ... insisting that their relative is innocent to the bitter end. They set up websites and initiate media campaigns ... just like Scott Peterson's family.

Ok, it this a good thing, what the Cooper trial revealed?

 

[Nova]

I think that if Amanda were on trial for murder in Seattle, she would (hopefully) have understood the importance of dressing in a more formal/neutral manner. There was something about her attitude from the beginning, and throughout the trial, that suggested she either didn't take the Italian justice system seriously, or she thought that she could do whatever she wanted without consequences. I think it's unfortunate that she was not counselled in the importance of appearances.

I think it's unfortunate that an apparent adult can't stop talking about what a young woman wore to court. Yes, indeed, AK should have received better advice as to what some people consider important.

Even if Amanda and Raffaele insist that they were at his apt the entire time, everything that they said they did was proven untrue through electronic records. If they went to sleep at 9:30 PM (after leaving the cottage at 4 PM, smoking a joint, eating dinner, having sex, having a shower, watching a movie), why were they still sleeping at 10 AM the following morning per their alibis? They haven't been able to account for the time even if they were at his apt.

1. ILE has proven itself incompetent to contradict anyone's account of anything and has done so again and again and again.

2. Even if AK and RS are mistaken about the details of everything they did on a night when they were stoned, that doesn't mean they are wrong about the basic fact that they were together in RS' apartment.

I wasn't stoned, but if you grilled me long enough about last night you'd eventually catch me in an error or a discrepancy with my husband's account. And if you insisted, I'd have to admit I can't be sure whether or not he got up while I was asleep. But basically we both know we were home together all night.

 

[SMK]

. . .

We see the Knox Sollecito families doing exactly what happens everywhere ... insisting that their relative is innocent to the bitter end. They set up websites and initiate media campaigns ... just like Scott Peterson's family.

OK, what about all of the rest of us? I have NO personal stake in Knox or Sollecito, neither does Allusonz or Nova, nor wasnt_me, nor Ohio girl, nor Old Steve, nor Miley, Malkums, nor Hendry, nor Waterbury, etc. etc. :waitasec:

 

[Nova]

OK, what about all of the rest of us? I have NO personal stake in Knox or Sollecito, neither does Allusonz or Nova, nor wasnt_me, nor Ohio girl, nor Old Steve, nor Miley, Malkums, nor Hendry, nor Waterbury, etc. etc. :waitasec:

You are generous to even respond to that argument. Just because some people refuse to believe their loved ones are guilty doesn't prove that the relatives of innocent people are wrong.

If the argument were turned around ("AK must be innocent because her mother and father say she is"), that would be another matter. But otto is well aware nobody here has made any such argument.

 

[otto]

:banghead:



Apparently she had the same faith that you seem to put in ILE to do their jobs and objectively weigh the evidence. I don't think you should fault her for doing EXACTLY what you do in every post, otto.

She thought she could manage or distract the investigators even though she had no alibi, there was evidence in the cottage that implicated her in the murder and she told whopper lies ... I think that given what we know, if she really wanted to get away with it she should have fled the county. She didn't, though. She did what murders do. They arrogantly assume they are smarter than everyone else, just like Scott Peterson and so many more. Peterson did realize in April that he had not fooled anyone, and Amanda realized on Nov 6 that she had not fooled anyone ... too late to get away with murder.

 

[otto]

Ok, it this a good thing, what the Cooper trial revealed?

Scary! I wouldn't want to be tried in the US for anything. It strikes me as a scary system with limited rights for an accused. Add to that that there are no consequences for publicly slandering people to the extent that it could interfere with their reputation and career ... very scary place. Add to that that the justice system is about punishment, not rehabilitation, and humans are euthanized against their will ... not for me.

Look at how Bruce Fisher (fake name, by the way) openly ridicules a journalist ... for no good reason:

"Those who closely follow the Amanda Knox trial will most likely read an article by Andrea Vogt, a freelancer who frequently writes for Seattlepi.com, which contains information about the U.S. State Department and their monitoring of Knox's trial. ... It seems in the last year Andrea Vogt can't seem to buy a scoop. ... Andrea Vogt, who attended most of sessions in Amanda Knox's trial, was either being blatantly dishonest or she was so incompetent that she didn't even realize she was reporting old news. ... Or better yet, maybe Andrea will report that we landed on the moon."

http://www.groundreport.com/World/How-a-Grad-Student-Scooped-Amanda-Knox-Trial-Journ/2939049

Is there really no consequence for people in the US to publish stuff like that?

 

[Nova]

She thought she could manage or distract the investigators even though she had no alibi, there was evidence in the cottage that implicated her in the murder and she told whopper lies ... I think that given what we know, if she really wanted to get away with it she should have fled the county. She didn't, though. She did what murders do. They arrogantly assume they are smarter than everyone else, just like Scott Peterson and so many more. Peterson did realize in April that he had not fooled anyone, and Amanda realized on Nov 6 that she had not fooled anyone ... too late to get away with murder.

I'm sorry, otto, but you really are posting utter nonsense here. (ETA by "here" I meant only the one post above and not "here" throughout the Meredith Kercher thread.)

That's what murderers do? Stick around because they think they can outsmart the police?

You must be thinking of Rudy Guede. (And watching too many TV shows.)

In fact, flight is traditionally seen as a sign of consciousness of guilt.

***

I see your new tactic is to repeatedly compare Amanda Knox to Scott Peterson. This is a new low in logical fallacy as there are virtually no points of similarity between the two, certainly not enough to construct a reasonable analogy.

 

[SMK]

Scary! I wouldn't want to be tried in the US for anything. It strikes me as a scary system with limited rights for an accused. Add to that that there are no consequences for publicly slandering people to the extent that it could interfere with their reputation and career ... very scary place. Add to that that the justice system is about punishment, not rehabilitation, and humans are euthanized against their will ... not for me.

Look at how Bruce Fisher (fake name, by the way) openly ridicules a journalist ... for no good reason:

"Those who closely follow the Amanda Knox trial will most likely read an article by Andrea Vogt, a freelancer who frequently writes for Seattlepi.com, which contains information about the U.S. State Department and their monitoring of Knox's trial. ... It seems in the last year Andrea Vogt can't seem to buy a scoop. ... Andrea Vogt, who attended most of sessions in Amanda Knox's trial, was either being blatantly dishonest or she was so incompetent that she didn't even realize she was reporting old news. ... Or better yet, maybe Andrea will report that we landed on the moon."

http://www.groundreport.com/World/How-a-Grad-Student-Scooped-Amanda-Knox-Trial-Journ/2939049

Is there really no consequence for people in the US to publish stuff like that?

Yes, the USA has become quite scary. I do not like a lot of what I am finding out. As per Mr. Fisher ( I understand he writes under a pseudonym, as do many authors) I do not think Ms. Vogt considers this libelous, just his opinion. You ought to see the nasty, sexual, and libelous things PMF posts about Fisher et al. Including Jim Wales of Wikipedia: They said he was only reviewing the Kercher Murder page in order to gain sex with Knox. Ah, the internet is a cesspool of striving egos.....:sick:

 

[SkewedView]

She thought she could manage or distract the investigators even though she had no alibi, there was evidence in the cottage that implicated her in the murder and she told whopper lies ... I think that given what we know, if she really wanted to get away with it she should have fled the county. She didn't, though. She did what murders do. They arrogantly assume they are smarter than everyone else, just like Scott Peterson and so many more. Peterson did realize in April that he had not fooled anyone, and Amanda realized on Nov 6 that she had not fooled anyone ... too late to get away with murder.

Murderers also flee, try to commit suicide, resist arrest, turn themselves in, calmly wait for police to arrive while covered in blood, wander the area aimlessly with a gun, go dancing, etc etc...

Arguing that AK not fleeing indicates guilt because the boogeyman Scott Peterson stuck around simply doesn't match up with the reality that killers all react differently after a murder...as do innocent people who find themselves targeted by LE.

As for her 'trying to misdirect LE' because they 'had evidence against her' - recall that during those 'interviews', LE did NOT have evidence against her (forensics weren't in yet)...they just TOLD her that they did, which is SOP for police in interrogations, a strategy that leads to as many false confessions as real ones, thus why LE always holds back info that only they and the killer would know, to separate the real confessions from the false ones. The fact that AK's 'confession' had absolutely no resemblance to what the forensic evidence did reveal should have been a big red flag.

See coverage of the investigation into the 'Yogurt Shop Murders' for a good look at how easy it is to illicit false confessions. See also coverage of the Stephanie Crowe murder for a good look at a case with disturbing similarities (with regards to the flawed investigation and questionable behavior on the part of LE) to this one (I have absolutely no doubt that Stephanie's brother and his friends would be rotting in prison right now if his lawyer hadn't found the key evidence that LE missed, which led to the real killer).

If you would like links etc to anything in this post, please ask and I will endeavor to provide them in a semi-timely fashion (no time at the moment, have to get my daughter to bed and walk the puppy). Sorry to just jump into the thread like this, but I've been watching it for a while now and just couldn't keep my big mouth shut any longer.

 

[SMK]

Murderers also flee, try to commit suicide, resist arrest, turn themselves in, calmly wait for police to arrived while covered in blood, wander the area aimlessly with a gun, go dancing, etc etc...

Arguing that AK not fleeing indicates guilt because the boogeyman Scott Peterson stuck around simply doesn't match up with the reality that killers all react differently after a murder...as do innocent people who find themselves targeted by LE.

As for her 'trying to misdirect LE' because they 'had evidence against her' - recall that during those 'interviews', LE did NOT have evidence against her (forensics weren't in yet)...they just TOLD her that they did, which is SOP for police in interrogations, a strategy that leads to as many false confessions as real ones, thus why LE always holds back info that only they and the killer would know, to separate the real confessions from the false ones. The fact that AK's 'confession' had absolutely no resemblance to what the forensic evidence did reveal should have been a big red flag.

See coverage of the investigation into the 'Yogurt Shop Murders' for a good look at how easy it is to illicit false confessions. See also coverage of the Stephanie Crowe murder for a good look at a case with disturbing similarities to this one.

If you would like links etc to anything in this post, please ask and I will endeavor to provide them in a semi-timely fashion (no time at the moment, have to get my daughter to bed and walk the puppy). Sorry to just jump into the thread like this, but I've been watching it for a while now and just couldn't keep my big mouth shut any longer.

Thanks for an excellent post, SkewedView ( your view, in truth, is not so skewed!):great:

 

[otto]

OK. Well, I have read that electronic records are on their side: They show computer activity as late as 9:26 pm, and TOD may have been 9:30. I do not know why Knox's counsel did not advice her on dress and demeanor. I think she was trying to come off like a fairey-like, wispy, airy thing---and it was not the right tack to take.

I know that some blogs are posting a later time that the movie ended, but it's best to go to the source for that information.

"The dead system confirmed that the last access (‚the system closed the program‛, is how Vice-Captain Trotta expressed it, on page 31, meaning that the ‚closure‛ could be correlated as much to the human activity needed to stop the playing of the film, as to the natural conclusion with the scrolling of the end credits, a place at which the end of the ‚film‛ itself would have undertaken a last interaction with the system, irrespective of the physical presence of a user), took place at 21:10:32 on the 1 November."

Motivation Report; pg 304

It was concluded by the judge and jury that movie simply stopped playing rather than some human activity turning off the movie or the computer.

The time of death, in my understanding, is somewhere between when Meredith returned home at 9 PM and as late as the last call from her father shortly after midnight.

 

[Nova]

Scary! I wouldn't want to be tried in the US for anything. It strikes me as a scary system with limited rights for an accused. Add to that that there are no consequences for publicly slandering people to the extent that it could interfere with their reputation and career ... very scary place. Add to that that the justice system is about punishment, not rehabilitation, and humans are euthanized against their will ... not for me.

Look at how Bruce Fisher (fake name, by the way) openly ridicules a journalist ... for no good reason:

"Those who closely follow the Amanda Knox trial will most likely read an article by Andrea Vogt, a freelancer who frequently writes for Seattlepi.com, which contains information about the U.S. State Department and their monitoring of Knox's trial. ... It seems in the last year Andrea Vogt can't seem to buy a scoop. ... Andrea Vogt, who attended most of sessions in Amanda Knox's trial, was either being blatantly dishonest or she was so incompetent that she didn't even realize she was reporting old news. ... Or better yet, maybe Andrea will report that we landed on the moon."

http://www.groundreport.com/World/How-a-Grad-Student-Scooped-Amanda-Knox-Trial-Journ/2939049

Is there really no consequence for people in the US to publish stuff like that?

I won't argue your criticisms of the U.S. criminal justice system. I agree it is far from perfect.

Yes, in theory, Andrea Vogt can sue Bruce Fisher for the remarks above. (She can even sue you and WS for repeating them here.) But it will be her burden to prove (a) that Fisher's charges are untrue; and, much harder, (b) that he knew or reasonably should have known they were untrue when he published them. The latter is a very high burden as it isn't easy (except in cases of confessed corruption) to prove that someone knew something other than what they said or wrote.

Then she will have to prove she was harmed by his criticisms in a way and to a degree that can be compensated by a monetary award. I don't have statistics on the subject, but it isn't my impression that U.S. courts are as free as Italian ones in calculating damages for slander and libel against public figures.

(FWIW, the burden of proof is lower when it is claimed a truly "private" citizen has been libeled or slandered. But I don't believe Vogt or Fisher could claim to be "private citizens" after publishing material under their names (even if they use pseudonyms).)

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. The above is my understanding based on what I've read of libel and slander cases.

 

[SMK]

I know that some blogs are posting a later time that the movie ended, but it's best to go to the source for that information.

"The dead system confirmed that the last access (‚the system closed the program‛, is how Vice-Captain Trotta expressed it, on page 31, meaning that the ‚closure‛ could be correlated as much to the human activity needed to stop the playing of the film, as to the natural conclusion with the scrolling of the end credits, a place at which the end of the ‚film‛ itself would have undertaken a last interaction with the system, irrespective of the physical presence of a user), took place at 21:10:32 on the 1 November."

Motivation Report; pg 304

It was concluded by the judge and jury that movie simply stopped playing rather than some human activity turning off the movie or the computer.

The time of death, in my understanding, is somewhere between when Meredith returned home at 9 PM and as late as the last call from her father shortly after midnight.

TOD shortly after midnight does not square with the digestive process, according to MK's last meal. It just does not. No way, no how. TOD was earlier. I read myself silly on this issue.

 

[Nova]

Thanks for an excellent post, SkewedView ( your view, in truth, is not so skewed!):great:

I agree. Terrific post.

It's true that different murderers do various and sundry, often conflicting, things.

But what I find odd is that in Mignini's (and otto's) views, Amanda Knox is so many completely different people. She's a criminal mastermind who talked two boys she barely knew into committing murder on her behalf, and then thought she could outwit the Italian police and prosecutor. But she's also so scattered and unexceptional she can't write a comprehensible story or dress herself.

 

[otto]

I think it's unfortunate that an apparent adult can't stop talking about what a young woman wore to court. Yes, indeed, AK should have received better advice as to what some people consider important.



1. ILE has proven itself incompetent to contradict anyone's account of anything and has done so again and again and again.

2. Even if AK and RS are mistaken about the details of everything they did on a night when they were stoned, that doesn't mean they are wrong about the basic fact that they were together in RS' apartment.

I wasn't stoned, but if you grilled me long enough about last night you'd eventually catch me in an error or a discrepancy with my husband's account. And if you insisted, I'd have to admit I can't be sure whether or not he got up while I was asleep. But basically we both know we were home together all night.

First impressions count more, and how people conduct and present themselves counts when they are being judged in a courtroom. There is no way to get around that.

Since all activity in the apt ceased, like the movie that ran out but was not turned off, at 9:10 PM, and the alibi is that they slept until 10 AM, what were they doing? Their alibi was that they smoked pot, watched a movie, ate dinner, etc. through the evening until late ... but all of that happened prior to 9:10 PM. What did they do after 9:10? Sleep for 13 hours? Stare at each other with no music?

 

[otto]

OK, what about all of the rest of us? I have NO personal stake in Knox or Sollecito, neither does Allusonz or Nova, nor wasnt_me, nor Ohio girl, nor Old Steve, nor Miley, Malkums, nor Hendry, nor Waterbury, etc. etc. :waitasec:

Scott Peterson had his followers long after the trial, just like Knox.

 

[Nova]

I know that some blogs are posting a later time that the movie ended, but it's best to go to the source for that information.

"The dead system confirmed that the last access (‚the system closed the program‛, is how Vice-Captain Trotta expressed it, on page 31, meaning that the ‚closure‛ could be correlated as much to the human activity needed to stop the playing of the film, as to the natural conclusion with the scrolling of the end credits, a place at which the end of the ‚film‛ itself would have undertaken a last interaction with the system, irrespective of the physical presence of a user), took place at 21:10:32 on the 1 November."

Motivation Report; pg 304

It was concluded by the judge and jury that movie simply stopped playing rather than some human activity turning off the movie or the computer.

The time of death, in my understanding, is somewhere between when Meredith returned home at 9 PM and as late as the last call from her father shortly after midnight.

From which of the fried hard drives did all that info come?

 

[otto]

I'm sorry, otto, but you really are posting utter nonsense here.

That's what murderers do? Stick around because they think they can outsmart the police?

You must be thinking of Rudy Guede. (And watching too many TV shows.)

In fact, flight is traditionally seen as a sign of consciousness of guilt.

***

I see your new tactic is to repeatedly compare Amanda Knox to Scott Peterson. This is a new low in logical fallacy as there are virtually no points of similarity between the two, certainly not enough to construct a reasonable analogy.

I would respectfully request that if you must make the following statements: "you really are posting utter nonsense" that you put it in a PM. Thanks in advance.