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

[Malkmus]

Yes of course, after she was stabbed she died and couldn't fight back anymore. I don't see how a single attacker could have prevented her from trying to defend herself and not receive any significant defense wounds. She was standing when she was attacked. There is a new website which clearly explains it so I am just gonna provide links as I am tired of explaining the obvious.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/index.php?title=Multiple_Attackers

A synopsis of the Massei report? Just like you disagree with Hellman agreeing with the dense arguments, I disagree with Massei subscribing to the prosecution arguments. You have to find some middle ground and not just say well this judge said this so it's a fact. He has an opinion just like Hellman did, so no point in telling me what he says since the guy thinks ridiculous things like Rudy getting turned on by watching Amanda and Raf make out is what led to the murder or that Amanda carried a kitchen knife in her purse for protection, or that Filomena definitely closed the shutters when she's quoted elsewhere in the same report saying she wasn't sure. There's no reason to say Meredith wasn't attacked from behind by one person and pushed on all fours as the defense claimed. The problem is pigeonholing her death into one and one only scenario to make a claim.

An illegal review doesn't count.

A. I don't think you've demonstrated that the review was deemed illegal, just that there will be a new trial to re-review everything.

and B. Even if it were deemed "illegal" it's not like the results were conducted by people who weren't qualified.

How do you rule out that someone came in right after the murder and created a bloody fingerprint?

That person would be a suspect unless witnessed by others who could give them an alibi.

You can't rule that out just based on that fingerprint. That was the whole point about Massei making the statement when it came to multiple attackers. I think 5 quotes of him saying that a single attacker is not likely should be enough.

Massei can say it a million times. Doesn't make a difference. We can play the dueling judges and experts game all day, but as I said, you have to find a middle ground based on the reasoning made.

 

[Malkmus]

It is explained in the video. AFAIK Eyes for Lies is pretty good in what she does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPm_ICYkf-Y

yet, you can't say what it demonstrates. It's two videos of two different people saying no they didn't kill someone, slowed down. You could throw anyone saying "no" in there and it would be just the same. It's junk science.

 

[Malkmus]

No, I haven't but neither have you so you can't possibly know the situation.

It was rhetorical. What does it matter if either of us was at the station? We have a government official giving us two contradictory explanations for the same thing.

It is possible the equipment wasn't setup because of budget reasons and they didn't have time to set it up. It is not important anyway.

Being too busy arresting Lumumba to hit record and not having the budget to record are two entirely different reasons.

Recording a witness is not required.

Recording a suspect is. And she was one from 1:45 through the end of her interrogation at 5:45.

Knox got lucky that there was no recording otherwise we could all have heard how she accused an innocent man of rape and murder in about an hour. The testimony of the translator is now available and everything was calm when she arrived at 00:30 and by 1:45 the accusation was signed. Do the math.
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/vi...cito+Switzerland+Anonymous&start=6350#p135102

The only thing both Amanda and the police agree on is that the translator tried to convince her she was traumatized and didn't remember being at the cottage that night when she was. That only tells us all we need to know about that unrecorded interrogation.

 

[sherlockh]

A synopsis of the Massei report? Just like you disagree with Hellman agreeing with the dense arguments, I disagree with Massei subscribing to the prosecution arguments. You have to find some middle ground and not just say well this judge said this so it's a fact. He has an opinion just like Hellman did, so no point in telling me what he says since the guy thinks ridiculous things like Rudy getting turned on by watching Amanda and Raf make out is what led to the murder or that Amanda carried a kitchen knife in her purse for protection, or that Filomena definitely closed the shutters when she's quoted elsewhere in the same report saying she wasn't sure. There's no reason to say Meredith wasn't attacked from behind by one person and pushed on all fours as the defense claimed. The problem is pigeonholing her death into one and one only scenario to make a claim.

Expert Testimony on Multiple Attackers

Dr Lalli and Dr Liviero testified that "the nature of the bruises and multiple wounds caused by several different methods -- suffocation, strangulation and stabbing -- led them to deduce Kercher was attacked by more than one person.[9] Dr Liviero stated "There were more hands involved"[10] which is basically what it comes down to. Rudy as a single attacker does not have sufficent hands to do all the required tasks. A single attacker needs one hand to wield the knife which just leaves a single hand to restrain Meredith and there is no way to restrain someone who is upright with just one hand. The cuts from both sides is also very difficult to explain with a single attacker.

Two defence experts testified that they saw no evidence that more than one attacker was involved although both these experts declined to examine the victim's body.[11] Declining to examine the body and instead working from pictures is a strategy that defence experts use to give them more room to interpret evidence in a favourable light to the defence without actually lying.[12] There is no other reason to work from pictures rather than from examining the body. The defence experts also disagreed on how the murder happened. Dr. Introna testified that the murder could only have happened from behind. Dr. Torre testified that the attack could only have happened from the front.[13] Dr. Torre was questioned about the lack of defensive wounds and while he agreed that normally for an attack like this you'd expect considerably greater defensive wounds that the lack of defensive wounds was not something he felt needed addressing.[14]

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/index.php?title=Multiple_Attackers

A. I don't think you've demonstrated that the review was deemed illegal, just that there will be a new trial to re-review everything.

and B. Even if it were deemed "illegal" it's not like the results were conducted by people who weren't qualified.

It is my interpretation of the Galati appeal and the fact that he won the appeal, but to be more clear I will wait till the SC report comes out. If what those 'experts' did was against the law then there is no point to discuss them any further.

That person would be a suspect unless witnessed by others who could give them an alibi.

Being a suspect does not rule out being innocent.

Massei can say it a million times. Doesn't make a difference. We can play the dueling judges and experts game all day, but as I said, you have to find a middle ground based on the reasoning made.

It was your point that when Massei said 'can't rule out' that this had some kind of special meaning even though I showed exactly what he meant by listing 5 different quotes.

 

[sherlockh]

It was rhetorical. What does it matter if either of us was at the station? We have a government official giving us two contradictory explanations for the same thing.

Being too busy arresting Lumumba to hit record and not having the budget to record are two entirely different reasons.

Recording a suspect is. And she was one from 1:45 through the end of her interrogation at 5:45.

You can't rule out that both are true as they are not contradicting at all. You keep pretending you know the situation in the police office but we don't. If there is no equipment setup then someone needs to get it from somewhere else. I think there is a bit more included then just push a button. Either way, it doesn't matter since the interrogation was stopped at 1:45. Knox became a suspect and after that there was no further interrogation.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/index.php?title=Amanda_Knox's_Confession

The only thing both Amanda and the police agree on is that the translator tried to convince her she was traumatized and didn't remember being at the cottage that night when she was. That only tells us all we need to know about that unrecorded interrogation.

She tried to help her since Knox kept pretending to suffer from sudden amnesia. If Amanda does not agree then that does not mean anything. She is a proven liar.

 

[Gecko100]

It was rhetorical. What does it matter if either of us was at the station? We have a government official giving us two contradictory explanations for the same thing.



Being too busy arresting Lumumba to hit record and not having the budget to record are two entirely different reasons.



Recording a suspect is. And she was one from 1:45 through the end of her interrogation at 5:45.



The only thing both Amanda and the police agree on is that the translator tried to convince her she was traumatized and didn't remember being at the cottage that night when she was. That only tells us all we need to know about that unrecorded interrogation.

How come other people who were questioned and let go, or arrested claim no police issues?
And what about this from a Court Report? Yes it's the M report.

''The above account given by Knox differed from that given earlier by her to police, during the night of November 5-6, 2007. That earlier account was briefly alluded to at her trial, but was admissible as evidence only in the civil case brought by Patrick Lumumba, and not in the murder case. Knox accounted for her change of story, on the grounds that it was because of the persistence of the questioning which had made her imagine what could have happened.[68] In this earlier account, she had described returning home to Via della Pergola, in the company of Patrick Lumumba, on the evening of November 1, 2007, after 9pm. She had described many things which she now realized she had imagined, including Meredith having had sex and being killed, while Knox held her own ears closed so as not to hear Meredith’s screams.[67-68]

Also in contradiction to Knox’s account is the fact that her SMS exchange with Lumumba, was in a different phone “cell” from the one covering Sollecito’s house, indicating that she was not, in fact, in the house at this time (just after 8pm),[77] although she had returned by Jovana’s arrival at 8:40.

The court noted the discrepancies in Knox’s various statements about the time they ate dinner: in one statement 9:30 to 10 pm and, in another, 11pm.[78] The court noted that both of these times are contradicted by the declarations of Sollecito’s father that his son had indicated that they had eaten and washed up before 8:42.[78]''

That's an awful lot of inconsistencies for a Court of Justice to be noting, and only a few of many.
And didn't Mr Lumumba and his poor wife and family get dropped right in it by a drug addled thrill seeker? Is he suing the police for 'handling' him badly or Ak because she is a liar?

He did time because of her silly druggie nonsense.
She is totally inconsistent and she still is.

Is RS pursuing justice from unjust police?
Is RG pursuing justice from unjust police?
Are all the other people involved in the questioning - including the flatmates pursuing justice from unjust police?
Does Ak seek justice from Mr S senior for contradicting her statement and apparently publicly lying about her?
Is PL pursuing justice from unjust police?

 

[Gecko100]

Oh and there is this:

''Mr Lumumba said: 'One thing I could never understand is that Amanda has always said she was given a rough time by the police. But I was named as the one who killed Meredith, the black third-world African, and they never gave me any problems.
'I do find that very strange, and I also find it amazing that she has never actually said sorry to me - when we were questioned she didn't even tell the police that I had nothing to do with it.''

DM2011

Why on earth would he say that?

 

[Gecko100]

What exactly is your point? We know that the police did in fact commit violations ranging from not taping the interrogation once Amanda was a suspect, not providing Amanda with a lawyer for her interrogation, wasting taxpayer money on a video reenactment of the murder that matches the budget of a small independent movie, not turning over the raw data to the defense which the prosecution was ordered to do in the appeal, alleged physical abuse by the police against Amanda and Patrick, and on and on. Some of these things are ethical violations, and some were remedied, but let's not pretend as if the police were completely transparent or honest.

Mr Lumumba has never said anything bad about the police at all, you are dreaming it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Hoyle wrote, "'They hit me over the head and yelled 'dirty black'. Then they put handcuffs on me and shoved me out of the door, as Aleksandra pulled Davide away, screaming.'
"He was greeted outside by a convoy of seven police cars, sirens blazing, and driven to Perugia's police station, where he was subjected to a ten-hour interrogation.
"'I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me,' he claims. 'They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime.'" I wonder why Patrick never sued the Daily Mail for writing this story.

 

[sherlockh]

Hoyle wrote, "'They hit me over the head and yelled 'dirty black'. Then they put handcuffs on me and shoved me out of the door, as Aleksandra pulled Davide away, screaming.'
"He was greeted outside by a convoy of seven police cars, sirens blazing, and driven to Perugia's police station, where he was subjected to a ten-hour interrogation.
"'I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me,' he claims. 'They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime.'" I wonder why Patrick never sued the Daily Mail for writing this story.

Because it is the Daily Mail? Most people take them with a grain of salt. Patrick said that he had been misquoted. On the other hand, I don't think they showed up at his door with tea and cookies after what Knox claimed he did.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

sherlockh, I was responding to Gekko, who said "never." If Lumumba was misquoted, why didn't he bring suit? Think about it.

 

[sherlockh]

sherlockh, I was responding to Gekko, who said "never." If Lumumba was misquoted, why didn't he bring suit? Think about it.

He explained on tv that he could understand the police after what Knox had told them. How should I know why he didn't bring suit? That is all up to him. He is another victim of Knox and I don't see any reason to doubt him. Besides this is a victim friendly forum so lets give the poor man some peace.

I quoted the Daily Mail once and was told never to trust that paper. I don't believe Knox ever filed suit either so therefore it is true?

How Foxy Knoxy changed her tune about the night Meredith was murdered

Yes we were in the house. That evening we wanted to have a bit of fun. We were drunk. We asked her to join us.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oxy-changed-tune-night-Meredith-murdered.html

 

[Gecko100]

sherlockh, I was responding to Gekko, who said "never." If Lumumba was misquoted, why didn't he bring suit? Think about it.

He appeared to be quite ok with the police, why would he bother suing anyone except the person who put him behind bars, who was convicted of lying and served 4 years for it?
Its hard to believe anything that she says ever, being a convicted liar already.
And all that...
They were two drugged up thrill seeking damaged nobody's, with spotted amnesia, nothing is reliable...
But she was very sure of PL's involvement based on her self admitted imaginings, and then forgot about him forever. Not even an apology.
Who would do that?
Italy has not gone out of it's highly sophisticated European cultural mind.

 

[Gecko100]

Hoyle wrote, "'They hit me over the head and yelled 'dirty black'. Then they put handcuffs on me and shoved me out of the door, as Aleksandra pulled Davide away, screaming.'
"He was greeted outside by a convoy of seven police cars, sirens blazing, and driven to Perugia's police station, where he was subjected to a ten-hour interrogation.
"'I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me,' he claims. 'They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime.'" I wonder why Patrick never sued the Daily Mail for writing this story.

I have no idea, you might like to correspond with him, he is suing AK not the police. He describes himself as AK's 'second victim'.
But not RS, just AK.

 

[otto]

Details, Otto. It wasn't just a scarf, but a fake moustache and cap. Just like the soccer player she says she was dressed as. Roger Levesque. Burglar costumes almost always have an eyemask, and rarely do moustaches play a part.

I don't think that soccer players wear fisherman's caps and I'm pretty sure that burglars don't cover their eyes with an eye mask.

 

[otto]

Hoyle wrote, "'They hit me over the head and yelled 'dirty black'. Then they put handcuffs on me and shoved me out of the door, as Aleksandra pulled Davide away, screaming.'
"He was greeted outside by a convoy of seven police cars, sirens blazing, and driven to Perugia's police station, where he was subjected to a ten-hour interrogation.
"'I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me,' he claims. 'They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime.'" I wonder why Patrick never sued the Daily Mail for writing this story.

We've discussed this point so many times that I'm surprised to see it raised yet again. This is not reporting, this is gossip. If this gossip is to be taken as truth, then (as has been done numerous times in the past) we can look at gossip from the same source that paints Knox in an extremely negative light. Should we accept all the gossip from this website, or none? ... or should we only accept that gossip that seems useful from time to time.

Essentially, the article is nonsense ... and I hope that everyone has realized that after six years.

 

[deedee21]

I didnt follow her trial and only know about it from her interviews. I wouldnt even try to figure out if she is guilty or not. But that interview unnerved me. I do not know why.

DAs here in the US. are saying there is nothing that links her to this crime. Nothing. Zippo. They have said she never should have been arrested in Italy and never would of been arrested here if the same crime happened here. The killer has already been caught and he is in jail. The Italian DA said there was a wild sex orgy. Its no wonder he was waiting for his own trial to start for railing roading people. Then was allowed to continue the same behavior while he waited. Our system is not perfect but a DA in the US would not be allowed to work if he had his own court date coming up.

 

[otto]

DAs here in the US. are saying there is nothing that links her to this crime. Nothing. Zippo. They have said she never should have been arrested in Italy and never would of been arrested here if the same crime happened here. The killer has already been caught and he is in jail. The Italian DA said there was a wild sex orgy. Its no wonder he was waiting for his own trial to start for railing roading people. Then was allowed to continue the same behavior while he waited. Our system is not perfect but a DA in the US would not be allowed to work if he had his own court date coming up.

Which district attorney are you referring to in your comment?

Alan Dershowitz describes criminal activities attributed to Knox that should get the attention of any prosecutor:

"The factors behind the initial conviction included an admission by Ms. Knox that she was at the crime scene in the northern Italian town of Perugia, plus her false accusation that a bartender had slit Kercher's throat. The case against her also included a questionable alibi and evidence of her DNA on the alleged murder weapon."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324789504578384871256488436.html

 

[Chris_Halkides]

He appeared to be quite ok with the police, why would he bother suing anyone except the person who put him behind bars, who was convicted of lying and served 4 years for it?
Its hard to believe anything that she says ever, being a convicted liar already.
And all that...
They were two drugged up thrill seeking damaged nobody's, with spotted amnesia, nothing is reliable...
But she was very sure of PL's involvement based on her self admitted imaginings, and then forgot about him forever. Not even an apology.
Who would do that?
Italy has not gone out of it's highly sophisticated European cultural mind.

I agree that Patrick was a victim. If Ms. Hoyle made up the quotes, then why wouldn't Patrick, who needed money, sue her paper? On the other hand, if his interview with her were taped and he really said them, then of course he would not be able to sue the paper (sherlockh, Ms. Knox has more pressing matters to attend to than suing the Daily Mail IMO). I don't equate using marijuana with being drugged up and I have no idea what spotted amnesia is, but to each his or her own. Despite Mr. Lumumba's claims, Ms. Knox apologized on several occasions, including at the start of the appeal. There is actually remarkably little detail in the statements Ms. Knox gave. As noted by someone else, "As far as we know, since there is no interrogation tape, the interviewers let up on Amanda just as soon as she implicated Patrick. Don't you think that's strange? I mean, after all the work it took to get that out of her, don't you think they would want to know the entire story, step by step? How and when did Amanda and Patrick make their plan? What did Patrick say to Meredith when they got there? Did Meredith willingly go into the bedroom with Patrick, or did she ask Amanda what was going on?

Then for Amanda to say she woke up in Raffaele's bed the next morning? Come on! Is that good enough for the Perugian police and prosecutor? How about WHEN did you leave the cottage? HOW did you get to Raffaele's? Did Patrick walk you there? What did you and Patrick talk about after the murder? What did Patrick do with his bloody clothes? Do you think you might have gone back to the club first? Did Patrick seem nervous?" link.

Federico Aldrovandi was also a victim, and he fared much worse than Mr. Lumumba. He was unarmed, yet some cops beat him to death. When his mother referred to the police as delinquents, they sued a grieving mother. At one point the police protested at her place of work. If that case doesn't raise yellow flags, then I suggest one look into the murder of Sarah Scazzi.

 

[miley]

No, I haven't but neither have you so you can't possibly know the situation. It is possible the equipment wasn't setup because of budget reasons and they didn't have time to set it up. It is not important anyway. Recording a witness is not required.

if recording a witness isn't required, then why bother debating his other excuses - naturally, he should have only used that one.