Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL* #2

[aa9511]

It is very difficult to know how far and wide the PR campaign reaches. Yesterday, someone posted a link to this article: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...-win-for-american-accused-of-murder-in-italy/

CBS news should be respectable enough. The article is written on October 16, 2013. The article states that, according to the Conti and Vecchiotti report, the knife and related evidence (Meredith's DNA) have been "busted", "trashed", "dismissed" and deemed "unreliable. The article goes on to suggest that the prosecution is now basing the case entirely on the 36-I sample (currently being tested). The article also suggests that if 36-I DNA belongs to Knox, then the case should be thrown out. What about the crime scene evidence and circumstantial evidence? Apparently that should be completely ignored, at the very least it is ignored by the author of the article.

If that is responsible reporting, there is a serious problem somewhere. The Conti and Vecchiotti report has been heavily criticized and is pretty much the primary reason that the appeal was annulled. None of the conclusions of the report are accepted by the court. Yet, the CBS article uses that rejected report as the foundation for the points made in the article. How is that possible? Where does such inaccurate and un-researched reporting come from? Is this an example of PR propaganda, or is it a reflection of the absence of integrity in today's news reporters?

I just had a look at the comments below the article. There you read the two sides of the debate. On the one hand, several people attempt to reinforce that claim that the Conti and Vecchiotti report is valid, and on the other and, others attempt to clarify that the knife evidence is still accepted by the court regardless of the Conti and Vecchiotti report.

Yes, CBS, ABC, NBC....with these highly-publicized cases, they say whatever they think the mainstream public wants to hear. Yes, it is a reflection of the absence of intergrity in today's reporters. They think this is something no one will "call them out on," and so they can get away with not doing enough research and just posting something on the internet about something that will grab people's attention and attract more viewers.

I don't know about their political reporting...I'm assuming they are much more careful regarding that, b/c of course many people will call them out on inaccurate reporting about high-importance issues. But these stories are just like "fluff" to them, I don't think they really place any importance on getting their facts straight.....they just want to put something catchy on there to get people to their website.

 

[otto]

What's "location of lividity?"

Otto, do you look at the Massei report on your computer, or do you have it printed out? TIA.

I just search the report on my computer. It's a searchable pdf file, so if you know what keywords you need, it's pretty easy to skim through the report and find relevant facts.

I haven't yet found the portion related to Meredith's body being moved after the murder, so take that with a grain of salt until I can find the link. Post mortem blood pooling was on the shoulder, but she was found on her back. I believe that was the basis for the suggestion that Meredith's body had been moved several hours after she was murdered.

 

[otto]

I know, it seems an awfully long time to wait but it will jut have to be borne. Yes, I had thought the same, and that the SC ruled that Guede did not act alone discounts any lone wolf theory and of course strengthens the supposition of Knox and Sollecito's involvement. But you're right: One simply cannot predict how the ruling will actually come down. What I can't believe is that no matter which way it goes, it can still be appealed. When exactly will the ruling be final? I can't seem to keep it straight

I think that this appeal is the final hearing of evidence, but I really don't know enough about it. Does the decision have to be confirmed by the Supreme Court?

 

[SMK]

I think that this appeal is the final hearing of evidence, but I really don't know enough about it. Does the decision have to be confirmed by the Supreme Court?

I suppose it does, but many are saying there can still be an appeal by either side Sounds a bit much to me. Some say that Hellman being overturned has placed this back to the pre-Hellman days. I just wish I knew the exact process, but I confess I don't grasp it.

 

[aa9511]

I know, it seems an awfully long time to wait but it will jut have to be borne. Yes, I had thought the same, and that the SC ruled that Guede did not act alone discounts any lone wolf theory and of course strengthens the supposition of Knox and Sollecito's involvement. But you're right: One simply cannot predict how the ruling will actually come down. What I can't believe is that no matter which way it goes, it can still be appealed. When exactly will the ruling be final? I can't seem to keep it straight

SMK, neither can I! Not to mention, the courts seemingly have no control over the defendants....one is sitting safely in the U.S., the other is off in some island in the Caribbean. It's so strange!! Although I suppose it would be the same here, if a conviction was overturned, the accused would be automatically let out.

 

[SMK]

SMK, neither can I! Not to mention, the courts seemingly have no control over the defendants....one is sitting safely in the U.S., the other is off in some island in the Caribbean. It's so strange!! Although I suppose it would be the same here, if a conviction was overturned, the accused would be automatically let out.

Yes, perhaps that part is understandable, but the fact that this ruling will not be the end, is most perplexing to me (as this will in fact be ruling #3). Yet on all forums, they say this will NOT be the final ruling.

 

[Nova]

Exactly. When Sollecito heard the news report that Meredith's DNA had been found on the knife in his drawer, he wrote in his prison diary:

"In one entry Sollecito referred to the eight-inch black handled knife, which was found in his apartment, with DNA from Meredith on the tip and Knox's near the handle.

He wrote: "The fact there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand. I apologised immediately and she said it was not a problem."

However police have spoken to several of Meredith's friends who have all told detectives that Meredith, from Coulsdon, Surrey, had never been to Sollecito's house."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-prison-diary-DNA-knife-pricked-cooking.html

This should be a lesson to you and everyone on how false testimony is coerced from suspects. LE concocts a lie (as they are allowed to do in most countries) and then demands that the suspect explain it to exonerate himself.

With enough pressure, the suspect invents a story--however improbable--in an effort to explain the "fact" and escape the pressure of the interrogation.

By the time it turns out that the presence of MK's DNA on the knife is highly questionable, it is forgotten that the questionable claim produced the false statement. Instead, RS' "lie" is now used independently as "proof" of his guilt.

When I watch such interrogations on TV, I keep expecting the suspect to simply say "How should I know how so-and-so's DNA ended up in a certain place?" And yet those who don't demand a lawyer seem to rarely do so, I assume because such a response does nothing to relieve the pressure.

 

[Nova]

We know he used the toilet, but that doesn't mean that he broke into the cottage to use the toilet. The prosecution theory is that Guede met with Sollecito and Knox in relation to drugs, that they went together to the cottage, that Guede used the toilet, that they chose to harass Meredith and ultimately murdered her. After the murder, they stole her rent money, stole both of her cell phones and fled the scene. Guede returned to his apartment where he changed clothes, and then he went dancing. Knox and Sollecito disposed of the phones and, after believing that no one had reported the screams, returned to the cottage to stage the scene. They returned to Sollecito's apartment at roughly 5:30 AM, where they used the computer to play music. They got up at about 10, and Knox went to the cottage to check the situation. After noon, they contacted Filomina ... and so on.

I never said RG broke into the apartment for that purpose. Didn't he blame his sudden need to go on something he ate?

The prosecutor's theory is preposterous. It reads like WAR AND PEACE.

Let's keep Occam's Razor in mind.

 

[Nova]

But could he have used it after the murder instead of before?

I can't say it's impossible, but the paucity of items stolen suggests to me that he hot-footed it out of the apartment once MK was dead.

 

[Nova]

Sigh, I guess I'll jump into this whole "writing" debate....:floorlaugh:

Nova, I understand your above points. One thing I would like to mention is, a couple of months ago I watched the Grant Hayes trial (north carolina), I think I started from somewhere around the middle. I hope this is not ruled as off-topic, b/c I am just mentioning it as an example (thank you!). Anyway, he and his wife murdered his ex-wife, then chopped up her body and transported it via coolers all the way to Texas where they dumped her in a creek.

Now this Grant Hayes also considered himself a "creative type," and he was a musician. He wrote songs and sometimes recorded hip-hop songs. And in his actual trial, the prosecutors actually played one of his songs for the jury to hear. This song contained explicit lyrics specifically about killing his ex-wife, as well as general lyrics about killing in general. I can't remember the exact words, but let's just say it was "disturbed." IIRC, he also talked about rape, and rape in regards to both his ex-wife and in general.

The prosecutors were able to use it as one piece of evidence, I'm assuming partly to show he wanted to kill his ex-wife, and partly to show that he had disturbed thinking and was capable of doing what he did.

I believe the Grant Hayes judge allowed this recording in because he talked specifically about his ex-wife, the person he ended up murdering. I do not believe a judge would have allowed it otherwise, but my point is that if Amanda's trial was here in the U.S.., and if a judge allowed them, I would have no trouble believing that any prosecutor would want those writings in as evidence. (Not that a judge would allow it, but if they did for some reason).

So therefore, I do think they have value, whether they in reality should or not.

Interesting. But even if you could prove that all killers write macabre poems, plays and stories, it wouldn't prove that everyone who writes such material is also a killer. Other posters and I have provided numerous examples to the contrary.

I think you're right (based on your reporting; I have no independent knowledge of the case): the writings were allowed in the Hayes case because they specifically articulated a plan to kill the eventual victim.

There is nothing equivalent in AK's writing.

(BTW and FWIW, the play that got me into grad school dealt with a girl whose boyfriend removed her arms and whose father tried to rape her. Her mother kept small change and precious items in her uterus, which had fallen out and dangled between her thighs. It was a farcical comedy.

My first play written for grad school dealt, in part, with a man who felt so dominated by his lust for women that he castrated himself with a broken beer bottle. (This was based on a real-life event.)

Yes, some people were terribly disturbed, but others appreciated the dark humor of the pieces.

Right now, I'm finishing a rather sweet musical about a lesbian wedding. But my confidence in my own writing has increased over the years and I no longer feel a need to resort to sensationalism. That's something that maturing as an artist affords one.

But some people openly questioned my character after those early plays. I am not only non-violent, however, but a lifelong pacifist. I wasn't writing anything I actually wanted to do.)

 

[Nova]

Yes, I also have a hard time believing that a burglar would risk taking the time to take a dump. It just doesn't seem plausible. Even if no one is home, I would think they would just want to get in and get out.

True, but in this case, we don't really know for sure what RG believed with regards to the occupants. He was tangentially connected to their group and may have (mis)understood that the girls would all be away for the night because of the holiday weekend.

 

[Amber29]

I just search the report on my computer. It's a searchable pdf file, so if you know what keywords you need, it's pretty easy to skim through the report and find relevant facts.

I haven't yet found the portion related to Meredith's body being moved after the murder, so take that with a grain of salt until I can find the link. Post mortem blood pooling was on the shoulder, but she was found on her back. I believe that was the basis for the suggestion that Meredith's body had been moved several hours after she was murdered.

I seem to remember it being something about an imprint of her shoulder was left in blood close to where her body was found. As if the blood had started congealing on the floor and then she was moved. I could be wrong as well ill do some looking around too and see what I can find.

 

[Nova]

In math (game theory), it's called the prisoner's paradox. The only scenario where everyone wins is where everyone remains silent.

I won't speak for RS, but I doubt AK and RG were experts on game theory.

And the "everyone wins" scenario requires that everyone understand as much and also hold up under withering police interrogation.

We might expect that from soldiers trained for it or members of a tight gang or family, but three young people who had known one another for a week or two?

Highly unlikely.

 

[Nova]

I can't remember enough to answer this as well others can, but Guede could have gone after the rent money for himself, and the others took the cellphones to cover up? Or, they could have taken the money not because they needed it, but to stage the break in....

I can't help but go back to the covering of Meredith with the duvet. How do they go from a most violent/vicious attack to then covering her up? Seem like that would have happened later, after someone(s) cooled down a bit and/or returned back to the scene....
Is that something Guede would have done?

That's a huge assumption (that anyone who would cover a body would only do so after an extended period of "cooling off" time).

MK surprised RG and he killed her in a panic. But the death wasn't premeditated and he immediately felt bad that he had been "forced" to eliminate the witness.

So he covered up what he had done the best he could.

No great mystery.

 

[Nova]

So how do they explain why they lied/changed accounts?

The guilty squirm and change their stories; the innocent flatmates each gave their account and that was it.

Because the innocent flatmates were immediately believed and several were allowed to return to England after giving statements.

None of them was under the interrogation pressure faced by AK or RS.

 

[Nova]

Meredith withdrew the 300 euro rent money a few days early and wanted to give it to Filomina, as she collected the money. Filomina didn't want to hold the money and said she would accept it after the weekend. Knox said that she couldn't pay rent until after Patrick paid her. Sollecito was on a monthly allowance and he had very little money at the end of October. They may have decided to steal the money for drugs. People sometimes steal because they can, not only because they have no money.

The phones were taken to prevent Meredith from calling for help. They obviously weren't stolen so that they could be used by someone else ... since they had been thrown away by 12:11 AM; within 2 hours of the murder.

If Guede wanted to steal something, and if he had climbed through the window, he would have stolen Filomina's laptop and jewelry, then he would have stolen Knox's laptop. Both were in plain view, but neither was stolen.

Knox and Sollecito have admitted that they were so high on drugs and alcohol that their memories of the night of the murder have vanished. Rather than interpret orgy as orgy, try inserting the phrase: sexual assault involving several people.

Try inserting "alien abduction". It works just as well.

You don't know what items RG wanted or what he thought could fence easily. For all you know, he may have planned to come back for Filomena's jewelry and laptop after he cased the rest of the apartment, but he was interrupted by MK's return.

Or maybe he didn't want to lug a laptop around and was only looking for cash.

 

[whoanellie]

I recall when originally reading about the duvet covering MK, and about AK being seen in the early morning buying cleaning supplies at the store which had just opened its doors, and the CCTV footage, and the postal police arriving before Sollecito had called, etc., --- and being sure they were guilty.

Then, the lone wolf theory, the story that the store owner let a year go by before coming forward, the CCTV clock being 10 minutes slow, etc. blew it all away.

So I ask in earnest: Did a PR campaign simply lie to make all that data seem irrelevant? Am truly asking, as I am sick of not knowing what is fact and what is fiction.

I was intrigued by the question of whether the call to 112 or the arrival ofthe Postal Police happened first. I decided to look at the reports of the three Italian courts to see what they had to say about the issue. English translations of the reports are available here, here , and here.

I've not read the full reports and for me the translations are sometimes difficult to understand. I looked for relevant information by searching for "postal", "postal police", and "112" throughout all three reports.
I couldn't find any specific mention of the belief that the call to 112 took place after the arrival of the Postal Police in the 1st report (Massei). It may be there but I couldn't find it. I do believe that if there was any half-way credible evidence for that order it would be in the report.
The 2nd report (Hellman) does discuss the issue in detail starting on page 83. See also the discussion at the bottom of page 84.
As far as I could find, the 3rd report doesn't address the relative timing of the two events.
None of the reports mentions the time stamp on the CCTV camera or other issues relevant to this question. I am sure there is other information out there but I am unaware of any testimony or documents available in English. Again, I trust that credible evidence suggesting Sollecito called 112 after arrival of the Postal Police would be presented in the first and third reports.

You can look at the reports for yourself and try to figure out what the three different courts decided on this issue. Then ask yourself, regarding this particular issue, who is attempting to present a biased view of the actual evidence.

 

[otto]

I seem to remember it being something about an imprint of her shoulder was left in blood close to where her body was found. As if the blood had started congealing on the floor and then she was moved. I could be wrong as well ill do some looking around too and see what I can find.

Thanks. I think we're remembering some small detail from about 5-6 years ago. I'll keep looking too ... I know it's out there.

 

[otto]

I was intrigued by the question of whether the call to 112 or the arrival ofthe Postal Police happened first. I decided to look at the reports of the three Italian courts to see what they had to say about the issue. English translations of the reports are available here, here , and here.

I've not read the full reports and for me the translations are sometimes difficult to understand. I looked for relevant information by searching for "postal", "postal police", and "112" throughout all three reports.
I couldn't find any specific mention of the belief that the call to 112 took place after the arrival of the Postal Police in the 1st report (Massei). It may be there but I couldn't find it. I do believe that if there was any half-way credible evidence for that order it would be in the report.
The 2nd report (Hellman) does discuss the issue in detail starting on page 83. See also the discussion at the bottom of page 84.
As far as I could find, the 3rd report doesn't address the relative timing of the two events.
None of the reports mentions the time stamp on the CCTV camera or other issues relevant to this question. I am sure there is other information out there but I am unaware of any testimony or documents available in English. Again, I trust that credible evidence suggesting Sollecito called 112 after arrival of the Postal Police would be presented in the first and third reports.

You can look at the reports for yourself and try to figure out what the three different courts decided on this issue. Then ask yourself, regarding this particular issue, who is attempting to present a biased view of the actual evidence.

It all comes down the conclusions in the Massei report. Hellman's decisions have been annulled, so it doesn't really matter what he concluded.

Let's look at what we know about the timeline.

12:47:23 Knox phones her mother for 88 seconds.At this time, nothing had happened and Knox has no memory of the phone call.

It is then 12:49.

Sollecito phoned the Carabinieri at 12:51. That call lasted 169 seconds, so about three minutes. He immediately placed a second call to the Carabinieri at 12:54 for 57 seconds.

It is then 12:55 PM, but according to Sollecito/Knox, the Postal police had not yet arrived. By 1 PM, the Postal police, Filomina and friends were all at the cottage. That leaves four minutes for Knox and Sollecito, standing outside when the Postal police arrived, and each of them walking the Postal police through the cottage and explaining the situation, and the arrival of Filomina and friends, all suddenly at he same moment at about 12:57 or 12:58.

Is that what Filomina and friends reported? Did they arrive pretty much at the same time as the Postal police?

 

[SMK]

I was intrigued by the question of whether the call to 112 or the arrival ofthe Postal Police happened first. I decided to look at the reports of the three Italian courts to see what they had to say about the issue. English translations of the reports are available here, here , and here.

I've not read the full reports and for me the translations are sometimes difficult to understand. I looked for relevant information by searching for "postal", "postal police", and "112" throughout all three reports.
I couldn't find any specific mention of the belief that the call to 112 took place after the arrival of the Postal Police in the 1st report (Massei). It may be there but I couldn't find it. I do believe that if there was any half-way credible evidence for that order it would be in the report.
The 2nd report (Hellman) does discuss the issue in detail starting on page 83. See also the discussion at the bottom of page 84.
As far as I could find, the 3rd report doesn't address the relative timing of the two events.
None of the reports mentions the time stamp on the CCTV camera or other issues relevant to this question. I am sure there is other information out there but I am unaware of any testimony or documents available in English. Again, I trust that credible evidence suggesting Sollecito called 112 after arrival of the Postal Police would be presented in the first and third reports.

You can look at the reports for yourself and try to figure out what the three different courts decided on this issue. Then ask yourself, regarding this particular issue, who is attempting to present a biased view of the actual evidence.

Thank you for this. And yes, it leads me back in a circle. I don't want to think the prosecution is spinning anything. Not to any extent which shows their argument to be devoid of truth. I keep thinking that they must be righteous, and in earnest, and the USA PR campaign did them a terrible disservice. So this is one more fact which crumbled.