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

Status
Not open for further replies.
In reading reviews about Knox's book, I get the impression that she did not realize how familiar people are with the facts of the case. I suppose it's possible that she has memory problems (like Arias) ... that fog which, in Knox's case, is blamed on drug abuse.
 
I find it very interesting that Knox claims that she was instantly angry upon learning that Meredith was murdered. She attempts to excuse all of her bad behavior at the police station as a by-product of anger. Apparently, she completely skipped the "shock" stage. In her own words, she understood that Meredith was murdered and that caused her to feel angry. She relies on the words of Mark Geragos in claiming that everyone experiences grief differently. I don't think that eliminating "shock" from the process is possible except when there is no shock.
 
I feel as though there is a chance rudy was there after the fact, possibly had an anxiety attack...I mean it's possible? maybe not probable, but I am having post trial amanda issues.
 
I find it very interesting that Knox claims that she was instantly angry upon learning that Meredith was murdered. She attempts to excuse all of her bad behavior at the police station as a by-product of anger. Apparently, she completely skipped the "shock" stage. In her own words, she understood that Meredith was murdered and that caused her to feel angry. She relies on the words of Mark Geragos in claiming that everyone experiences grief differently. I don't think that eliminating "shock" from the process is possible except when there is no shock.

I read her book. She DOES NOT say that her first reaction was anger. It was, in fact, shock. Relying on reviews which I suspect are from anti-Amanda websites, isn't going to get you the truth.
 
I read her book. She DOES NOT say that her first reaction was anger. It was, in fact, shock. Relying on reviews which I suspect are from anti-Amanda websites, isn't going to get you the truth.

In one of the interviews, she explains that she acted inappropriately at the police station because she was angry. She went direclty from the scene of the crime to the police station so if she was in shock, she got over it very quickly.
 
In one of the interviews, she explains that she acted inappropriately at the police station because she was angry. She went direclty from the scene of the crime to the police station so if she was in shock, she got over it very quickly.

Being angry about your friend's death is "getting over it very quickly"?
 
She is odd. Even if you don't know all the details about the case, it is not so difficult to spot that Knox is lying. She is not doing herself any favors with the book tour IMO.

Eyes for Lies - Comparing Knox with Travis Forbes (murdered Kenia Monge)
Amanda Knox Answering Key Questions - YouTube

Bill Maher - "Your answers are disturbingly Clintonesque, Amanda. I thought you were innocent but lets just say if I were Diane Sawyer I wouldn't sit quite so close."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD5n8AUHNHg

Anonymous - Amanda Knox's Lies - Lie to me (Micro expressions)
Amanda Knox's Lies - Lie to me (Micro expressions) - YouTube

I hope everyone actually clicks on these links. Before I did, I thought they seriously had something to do with lies. Rather, one is a comedian making jokes, and the other two are just embarrassing for the person who made them.
 
Interesting article comparing Knox's own words ... given at separate time. There are conflicts in critical details.

"In the letters, Knox says that on the day Kercher's body was discovered she looked through the keyhole of the British student's locked door and saw her purse on the bed. In her memoir, Knox says she tried to look through the keyhole, but saw nothing."

"In a letter to her lawyers, Knox says the police gave her time to write a statement, while in her memoir she says they rushed her. The letters say she was "checked out by medics", an incident that becomes "the most dehumanizing degrading experience I had ever been through" in her memoir."

"Describing an interview with police in Capanne prison in December 2007 she says it was attended by the prosecutor, her interpreter, two police and her two attorneys. But there was another person there – a third attorney named Giancarlo Costa. He was the first lawyer to represent her, but later left the case. Costa has confirmed he was present at the interview and his name is read out in the audio recording of the interrogation. Why would Knox remember so many details but leave him out?"

"Fine points such as these can make or break a case in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion, perhaps they don't matter."

http://www.theweek.co.uk/crime/amanda-knox/52801/amanda-knox-memoir-omissions-and-discrepancies

"Critical details"? I'd really like to know how mentioning seeing the purse (at trial and in her book, looking through the keyhole is in the context of trying to see Meredith whom she didn't see. Hence seeing nothing), seeing/not seeing one of three lawyers, or the degree of the medical check would make or break this case to a jury. If any of these three things mattered she could easily have mentioned them in her book. But they don't matter and she didn't. Of course when the witnesses/police change their stories they're still reliable to you.
 
Lied about what? Is this like saying the forensic expert lied about not doing a blood test and then claiming the Luminol evidence is useless because they didn't do a blood test?

For someone who reads TJMK and the CNN interview with Mignini, I'm sure you know that in one he cites budgetary issues for not allowing them to tape the interrogation(s), and "agitation" due to having to arrest Lumumba in the other.

This is now completely different than claiming the murder was a satanic rite or sacrifice or whatever. Micheli rejected the Halloween elements, but it is not so strange to consider that Halloween elements could have played a role in whatever lead up to the murder. It was the day after Halloween after all.

Micheli rejected the manga comics element, but Massei didn't. He mentioned it because it showed Sollecito had an interest in images of sexual violence.

It was mostly defence lawyers who put these words in Mignini's mouth, and then journalists who picked up on that.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Knox-case-takes-new-twist-33-million-sought-1288815.php

You say it was the defense lawyer putting words in his mouth, and Mignini says it was a reporter making it up. Which is it?
 
More specifically 10:50pm

The study talked about rape cases. Not stabbing victims. Nobody would let that happen. It is a natural reflex. Everybody would try to defend themselves. Look at real one on one fights such as Ron Goldman (O.J. Simpson), or Stephany Flores (J. vd Sloot). Horrible defensive wounds.

In exactly the same spot while Meredith was trying to get away? That is very hard to believe IMO.

Initially complying with Rudy still doesn't negate the other fact that you neglected to respond to:

Second is the fact that men's greater size and strength are in themselves threatening to women and are often enough either to intimidate the victim or to overcome her resistance.

Meredith would also have had a very hard time defending against stabs made while she was on all fours. Furthermore, your supposition that Meredith wouldn't have been too shocked to protect herself reminds me of the recent comments from a US politician who said that the poor man who lost his legs in the Boston bombing not screaming in pain or writhing around means that he was acting and the whole thing was fake. The science demonstrates both of you are wrong about how people behave under moments of excruciating pain.

How do you know it wasn't Knox that carried the knife around? Somebody must have brought it to the cottage.

Massei report

Please tell me of one example where a woman has stated she carries around a large kitchen knife in her bag for protection.

But but...he doesn't rule out a single attacker!

Exactly. Restraint marks, other people's fingerprints in blood, or luminol footprints found in the murder room would have ruled out a single attacker.
 
In reading reviews about Knox's book, I get the impression that she did not realize how familiar people are with the facts of the case. I suppose it's possible that she has memory problems (like Arias) ... that fog which, in Knox's case, is blamed on drug abuse.

Kinda funny you mention that - cause the evidence against Guede is pretty similar in every way to the evidence against Arias.

And - like in the arias case, the roommate was involved in the discovery.

The only difference is - in America with the Arias case - police didn't make up a bunch of weird stories to try and implicate the roommate, and the press didn't decide the roommate was guilty without any evidence. Strange as it might seem to an Italian prosecutor and his investigators - the Americans actually processed the scene, gathered evidence, analysed it, came up with the sole DNA matched suspect and arrested that person (instead of everyone else first).

Interesting differences in methodology - I think.
 
Who says 'odd' is the smoking gun? That she is lying is a different story though. That is a bit more than just a smoking gun. She puts herself out there while her trial is ongoing. Of course people are gonna see her for what she really is. A cold blooded murderer without a single sign of remorse IMO.

So anyone who attempts to defend themselves must be a cold blooded killer without remorse?????????
 
Being angry about your friend's death is "getting over it very quickly"?

People go through stages of grief. Anger is not the first, yet Knox claims that her initial abnormal reaction was caused by anger.
 
"Critical details"? I'd really like to know how mentioning seeing the purse (at trial and in her book, looking through the keyhole is in the context of trying to see Meredith whom she didn't see. Hence seeing nothing), seeing/not seeing one of three lawyers, or the degree of the medical check would make or break this case to a jury. If any of these three things mattered she could easily have mentioned them in her book. But they don't matter and she didn't. Of course when the witnesses/police change their stories they're still reliable to you.

Andrea Vogt, in the article I quoted, points out several discrepancies between Knox's new-told story and the facts. She identifies several points in Knox's book where Knox changes her story. Another example is where Knox claims that she phoned her mother after she left the cottage and before she arrived at Sollecito's apartment. That didn't happen and Knox should know that because she was questioned about it during trial. She phoned her mother after Sollecito was at the cottage and before the body was discovered. Knox experienced "the fog" regarding the phone call. Knox also phoned Meredith before she phoned Filomina, but again, the fog prevented her from reporting that to Filomina even though the body had not yet been found.

One by one, these discrepancies can be given one excuse or another, similar to what was argued with the trial evidence, but in totality, it becomes another beast altogether.
 
Kinda funny you mention that - cause the evidence against Guede is pretty similar in every way to the evidence against Arias.

And - like in the arias case, the roommate was involved in the discovery.

The only difference is - in America with the Arias case - police didn't make up a bunch of weird stories to try and implicate the roommate, and the press didn't decide the roommate was guilty without any evidence. Strange as it might seem to an Italian prosecutor and his investigators - the Americans actually processed the scene, gathered evidence, analysed it, came up with the sole DNA matched suspect and arrested that person (instead of everyone else first).

Interesting differences in methodology - I think.

In the Travis Alexander murder, the roommates did not go to police and claim that they witnessed an innocent man or woman commit murder. They told police that they should talk to Arias. That is the critical difference, and the initial point that demonstrated Knox's involvement in the murder.
 
People go through stages of grief. Anger is not the first, yet Knox claims that her initial abnormal reaction was caused by anger.

The stages of grief are fluid, and everyone experiences it differently. It is not a requirement that one goes through the stages in a linear fashion in order for them to be considered grieving properly.


http://grief.com/the-five-stages-of-grief/

And again, her first reaction was shock.
 
In the Travis Alexander murder, the roommates did not go to police and claim that they witnessed an innocent man or woman commit murder. They told police that they should talk to Arias. That is the critical difference, and the initial point that demonstrated Knox's involvement in the murder.

That wasn't what I referred to in my post.

The similarities have nothing to do with the investigation - but with the scene.

Travis Alexander was found in a locked bedroom, that was sealed after the murder until the discovery. DNA, prints and other integral info was found in blood - matching a single suspect.

Meredith Kercher was found in a locked bedroom, that was sealed after the murder until the discovery. DNA, prints and other integral info was found in blood - matching a single supect.

Those are the similarities. Not more, not less - and certainly NOT the way investigators handled the case.

Make NO mistake - there are absolutely NO similarities in the 2 investigations.
 
That wasn't what I referred to in my post.

The similarities have nothing to do with the investigation - but with the scene.

Travis Alexander was found in a locked bedroom, that was sealed after the murder until the discovery. DNA, prints and other integral info was found in blood - matching a single suspect.

Meredith Kercher was found in a locked bedroom, that was sealed after the murder until the discovery. DNA, prints and other integral info was found in blood - matching a single supect.

Those are the similarities. Not more, not less - and certainly NOT the way investigators handled the case.

Make NO mistake - there are absolutely NO similarities in the 2 investigations.

I certainly agree that Travis Alexander's murder was similar to that of Meredith Kercher in the single fact that both were found at home and behind a locked door. After that, I think pretty much everything is different. In Meredith's case, we not only have a false allegation against an innocent man (which places the author of that false allegation at the scene), but we have a staged break in. The differences are numerous.
 
In the Travis Alexander murder, the roommates did not go to police and claim that they witnessed an innocent man or woman commit murder. They told police that they should talk to Arias. That is the critical difference, and the initial point that demonstrated Knox's involvement in the murder.

I don't exactly believe that Amanda sticking out her tongue, making faces at her boyfriend and sitting on his lap are indicative of anger, but that's Knox's latest "story".
 
I hope everyone actually clicks on these links. Before I did, I thought they seriously had something to do with lies. Rather, one is a comedian making jokes, and the other two are just embarrassing for the person who made them.
Eyes for Lies is just like Wendy Murphy well respected throughout this forum. Just look at Caysey Anthony, Darlie Routier, and Jodi Arias for example. That you can only resort to bashing these people says it all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
165
Guests online
2,172
Total visitors
2,337

Forum statistics

Threads
590,033
Messages
17,929,207
Members
228,043
Latest member
Biff
Back
Top