Amanda Knox New Motivation Report RE: Meredith Kercher Murder #1 *new trial ordered*

[Footwarrior]

Who had a habit of not flushing the toilet?

If it was Knox that had a habit of not flushing the toilet, does that mean that she's also the type of woman that will blow dry her hair next to an unflushed toilet used by Guede when he had an upset stomach? Please tell me that no one is attempting to demonstrate that this is normal behavior.

The big bathroom in the cottage has two parts. The toilet and shower are in one, the mirror and sink in another. Amanda would not have been standing next to the toilet while blow drying her hair.

 

[sherlockh]

Then we can put him in line with all the other witnesses who gave conflicting stories.

A witness can be mistaken but is not allowed to lie on the stand. This can have serious legal consequences. There is no way Guede was mistaken so why was he lying and not telling the truth?

 

[trillian]

Can anyone tell me where I can find Guede's detailed story of the events of that night?
I remember him not naming them, then saying something about a shadow outside, another story about a man coming in to kill her while he was on the toilet and he fled in panic.

Did he ever give a final story of how Amanda and Raffaelle were involved with him? Because I don't recall any of his stories that have himself as the actual killer in cahoots with other parties as the prosecution would let us believe. His initial story made before he knew they were suspects did not include them.

And if he eventually does tell the truth when he is released, does he face further consequences?

Sorry if it has been asked and answered previously. I've been away from this case for a while. Thanks!

 

[sherlockh]

He refused to speak or read the statement himself. Apparently he was unable to understand all the words written.

Or maybe he didn't want to read the statement? Why would he need to understand the words to be able to read them? Or are you suggesting he can't read?

 

[trillian]

A witness can be mistaken but is not allowed to lie on the stand. This can have serious legal consequences. There is no way Guede was mistaken so why was he lying and not telling the truth?

You are asking why someone on trial would lie about committing a murder because of the legal consequences of lying?

 

[Malkmus]

Or maybe he didn't want to read the statement? Why would he need to understand the words to be able to read them? Or are you suggesting he can't read?

Wow. I don't think I need to explain the bolded line.

As for the last sentence, I'm saying I don't think he wrote the statement. Again, it sheds no light on what actually happened and only goes to serve the prosecution, not actually explain what happened that night.

 

[Malkmus]

A witness can be mistaken but is not allowed to lie on the stand. This can have serious legal consequences. There is no way Guede was mistaken so why was he lying and not telling the truth?

You'll have to be more specific as to which statement of his you're referring. There's the one where he doesn't implicate them, then the one where he says Amanda was ringing the bell to her own place, then the one where he just says they did it but not him.

 

[Footwarrior]

Showering in a house when the door is left open, but you have three roommates... that might scare the bejeesus out of you, but I think most 20 year old girls would not be terrified by an open front door, considering there are far more likely explanations other than a break-in/murder, the biggest reason being that the door was faulty and would open by itself unless locked.

Amanda found the door open when she returned that morning, but there is no indication she left it that way while she was using the shower.

The faulty door latch comes into this story in another way. The most reasonable explanation for the "gift" he left in the toilet is that Rudy was using it when Meredith came home that fateful night. Meredith would have unlocked the door, then locked it behind her because the latch could not be trusted. If Rudy tried to sneak out, he would have found the door locked. After the murder, he seems to have found Meredith's keys used them to lock her bedroom door and unlock the front door. Rudy would not have known about the faulty latch and wouldn't have wanted to stand outside fumbling in the dark to lock the door.

Meredith's keys have never been found. My theory is that Rudy discarded them that night, perhaps throwing them into the same villa garden where the cell phones were found.

 

[sherlockh]

You'll have to be more specific as to which statement of his you're referring. There's the one where he doesn't implicate them, then the one where he says Amanda was ringing the bell to her own place, then the one where he just says they did it but not him.

He only talked once on the stand as a witness.

 

[Malkmus]

He only talked once on the stand as a witness.

Okay, so when Guede was on the stand what exactly could he have "not been" mistaken about? The notion that Amanda and Raf are responsible for the murder or the notion that he had nothing to do with it?

You also just said up-thread that he didn't talk. So a bit confusing.

 

[sherlockh]

Wow. I don't think I need to explain the bolded line.

As for the last sentence, I'm saying I don't think he wrote the statement. Again, it sheds no light on what actually happened and only goes to serve the prosecution, not actually explain what happened that night.

Yes, you do. If he can read then he could have read the statement. Doesn't matter if he understands what he reads. He knew he was going to get questioned about it anyway. The reading part was just a formality.

 

[sherlockh]

Okay, so when Guede was on the stand what exactly could he have "not been" mistaken about? The notion that Amanda and Raf are responsible for the murder or the notion that he had nothing to do with it?

You also just said up-thread that he didn't talk. So a bit confusing.

He answered questions so he talked. He refused to talk about his own involvement, and he acknowledged the part where he mentions AK and RS as the killers. I think we all know he was involved as well, so how can he be mistaken about who was with him? He either tells the truth or he lies. If he lies then this could have serious legal consequences, and for him there was nothing to gain at that point since his own trial was already finished.

So please explain who wrote the statement, and why Guede would risk extra jail time by playing along at that point, and what is the evidence for all of this?

 

[otto]

Knox had a habit of not flushing, which if your remember was used by the prosecution to demonstrate tension between Amanda and Meredith. Unfortunately, it negates the idea that her not flushing someone else's toilet after the murder is unusual.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see it that way. Guede had been sick because of a bad kabob and had spent a fair amount of time in the toilet due to that upset stomach. Then, we have Knox, about 12 hours later, obliviously blow drying her hair next to that unflushed toilet. No matter how you spin it, it's just not normal ... in my humble opinion. Even if it was normal for Knox, we also have the wide open front door, the blood on the floor and sink in the other bathroom, a locked bedroom and who knows what else ... all of which Knox apparently thought was completely normal because ... that was what she was used to???

 

[otto]

The big bathroom in the cottage has two parts. The toilet and shower are in one, the mirror and sink in another. Amanda would not have been standing next to the toilet while blow drying her hair.

The little room off the kitchen has a washing machine, counter and window. The bathroom next to it has a sink/mirror, toilet and bathtub. She was blow drying her hair next to the dirty toilet in the bathroom ... she was not blow drying her hair in the laundry area.

 

[otto]

Or maybe he didn't want to read the statement? Why would he need to understand the words to be able to read them? Or are you suggesting he can't read?

Guede was raised in Italy and he was educated in Italian schools, so I can't imagine that he would suddenly become illiterate in Italian.

 

[otto]

He refused to speak or read the statement himself. Apparently he was unable to understand all the words written.

There is nothing to support the claim that he was unable to understand the words in his statement. He chose not to speak. That was his right and he exercised it. It had nothing to do with being literate.

 

[Footwarrior]

The little room off the kitchen has a washing machine, counter and window. The bathroom next to it has a sink/mirror, toilet and bathtub. She was blow drying her hair next to the dirty toilet in the bathroom ... she was not blow drying her hair in the laundry area.

The counter over the washing machine has a nice sink, a large mirror and a convenient electrical outlet. There are also hair brushes sitting next to that sink. The sink in with the toilet has a tiny mirror no more than a few inches across and no place to set a blower down.

 

[SMK]

Let's suppose that the conviction is confirmed and an extradition request is made. Let's suppose that the US refuses to honor the treaty agreement on the basis that US law does not permt the prosecution to appeal an appeal ruling.

How do you suppose that will go over in terms of the continued existence of that treaty? If the US is not prepared to honor a treaty, wouldn't that be a very good reason for Italy to terminate the agreement? Realistically speaking, if the agreement is only in place for the benefit of the US, then it should be revoked. Is the US willing to go that far in order to protect a woman convicted of murder in a European country?

If this new appeal trial upholds the original 2009 conviction, I think she will be extradited.

If Knox is again convicted and the verdict is upheld by the Supreme Court, Italy would be expected to seek her extradition in order to put her back in prison.

"We've got a [extradition] treaty," said Bruce Zagaris, a Washington-based attorney who specializes in extradition cases. "The Senate has already ratified that treaty and decided that Italy is a country with which we ought to have a treaty. They wouldn't have ratified if they didn't think the Italian process was fair and due process was sufficient."

"She can try to fight extradition, but it will be an uphill battle," Zagaris said.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-case-extradited-italy/story?id=18815983#.UVnyQxzU64w

 

[otto]

The counter over the washing machine has a nice sink, a large mirror and a convenient electrical outlet. There are also hair brushes sitting next to that sink. The sink in with the toilet has a tiny mirror no more than a few inches across and no place to set a blower down.

So Knox did not use the second bathroom, but instead did her hair in the laundry room? That doesn't sound right. I checked, and Knox told the court that she did her hair in the bathroom, not the laundry room.

http://www.westseattleherald.com/si...tachments/MasseiReportEnglishTranslation.pdf; p65

 

[otto]