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

[redheadedgal]

In all the promos for the April 30 interview, looks like AK has showered, washed her hair and dressed demurely. Totally opposite from all the previous photos.

IMO, AK is guilty as H**L! I hope she's finally made to pay for her crime against Meredith Kercher.

in which of the pics @ the links below does she look unshowered, with dirty hair and is wearing sexy clothing?

bing search: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...knox&FORM=IGRE

google search: http://www.google.ca/search?q=amand...LjiAK17IHgCw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1525&bih=659

yahoo search: http://ca.images.search.yahoo.com/se...15&fr2=piv-web


and, could you please elaborate on how being a supposedly unshowered female with unwashed hair in sexy clothing contributes to making one guilty of murder?

 

[Malkmus]

All the talk about extradition shows that most people realize that there is a ton of evidence all pointing at Knox and her ex-bf, and that they will be found guilty in the upcoming 2 appeal trials as well. I don't know what is so cool about making a murderer a national hero. Wendy Murphy says it better than I can:

http://www.kxl.com/03/26/13/Justice...landing_lars.html?blockID=675615&feedID=10628

Her appearance has nothing to do with her guilt or innocence. But apparently it matters a great deal to those who think she's guilty.

You're the first person I've heard refer to her as a hero. So not sure why that's even being brought up.

You're making quite a leap there by making a connection between people talking about extradition meaning they think there's "a ton of evidence". A new judge and jury isn't going to make the luminol prints suddenly test positive for blood, the witnesses no longer contradict their own stories, or somehow not make the DNA lcn anymore. All the same hurdles will remain, including, last but not least, the lack of any sensical narrative involving AK or RS.

 

[Malkmus]

And yet she has been a guest on this boards radio show several times. Go figure.
Tonight Tricia's True Crime Radio/Wendy Murphy - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Yes, why would anyone anyone care that she's misinformed and spreading that misinformation? As long as she supports your view its okay?

 

[sherlockh]

Yes, why would anyone anyone care that she's misinformed and spreading that misinformation? As long as she supports your view its okay?

There is no need to bash her. At first, she had a few minor details wrong which is not so strange since she follows many trials at once. For example, I remember she mentioned at first that partial DNA of the victim was found on the blade of the kitchen knife. This is an error in favor of the defense since it was a full DNA profile. I think she is now mostly correct on the evidence. That you don't agree with the evidence is of course a different story.
http://wendymurphylaw.com/amanda-knox/

 

[sherlockh]

Her appearance has nothing to do with her guilt or innocence. But apparently it matters a great deal to those who think she's guilty.

You're the first person I've heard refer to her as a hero. So not sure why that's even being brought up.

You're making quite a leap there by making a connection between people talking about extradition meaning they think there's "a ton of evidence". A new judge and jury isn't going to make the luminol prints suddenly test positive for blood, the witnesses no longer contradict their own stories, or somehow not make the DNA lcn anymore. All the same hurdles will remain, including, last but not least, the lack of any sensical narrative involving AK or RS.

Nobody talked about extradition after the first trial. We are back at the same stage now and 'everybody' talks about it. It is a different mind set. I do hope that has to do with the evidence and the ruling by the SC confirming the calunia conviction, but maybe you are right and many people don't realize what exactly is going on. I hardly see it reported that Knox is a proven liar and a convicted criminal now. It is never reported that the SC could have cancelled the first trial as well but that they didn't. However, this is all very important to realize if you are interested in the upcoming 2 appeal trials.

I just explained about the Luminol prints. Why repeat this myth again? It is not expected that the Luminol prints tested positive for blood. They were invisible. I showed with scientific quotes that bleach can be ruled out. The only defense strategy left is using generic terms such as iron or copper. I just looked up what that actually means in a common households and even 'fruit juice' seems impossible as it does not react like blood. It should be pulp.
http://www.iapsonline.com/sites/def...mon Interferences with Luminol With Blood.pdf
So was it blood or to Turnip (pulp), Parsnip (pulp), Horseradish (pulp) or Enamel paint? Good luck with that one.

The only thing that is left is that the narrative where 1 girl is attacked by another girl with her 2 friends seems impossible to some. The new judge will not think like that. He will just follow the evidence.

 

[Katie-L]

For the details we have to wait till the report comes out. If you have read the Galati appeal then you understand that it is what I expect.

By the way, this writer states that 'Requested Party' is the US and that Italy would be the Requesting Party so this whole discussion might be moot as she was never tried in the US.

http://opiniojuris.org/2013/03/29/l...red-reading-the-u-s-italy-extradition-treaty/

One person's inability to understand what an extradition treaty is, what it involves and how it's applied doesn't really affect anything here.

An extradition treaty is a multi-national political-legal document, signed between multiple nations. Each nation then - internally - writes it's own protocols covering what it will and will not accept from each country.

Each nation then develops their own internal legal structure to deal with claims - in order to assist the cause of justice while also guarding the rights of it's own citizens. In nations such as the US - where the constitution is a critical part of it's own justice process - the legal structure is very complex and, even when an extradition seems probable - the process is very long and can be fought or thwarted by anyone from the accused to a US judge to a US prosecutor or attorney.

The point, however, is completely moot.

Italy hasn't made an extradition request.

Italy hasn't even invited either of the accused to attend the new trial.

And, in spite of what a journalist wants to believe - Knox and Sollecito are considered legally innocent in Italy and the entire world right now. That continues unless it changes. It hasn't changed.


Addendum:
You've asked in several places, several times "then what's the point of a treaty".

The treaty's first point is to prevent criminals from using international borders to thwart justice and for nations to cooperate and ensure that doesn't happen. If that was the only point, however, it could be covered in a simple paragraph or sentence (send plane ticket and we'll send accused).

The rest of the treaty ensures that each sovereign nation maintains it's right to ensure it's own citizens rights are not thwarted, to prevent injustice and to maintain it's own system of justice and punishment over those under it's legal jurisdiction.

So... "don't send plane ticket. send request and information and supporting documentation and we'll consider your request and get back to you with our response".

 

[sherlockh]

One person's inability to understand what an extradition treaty is, what it involves and how it's applied doesn't really affect anything here.

Snipped. You suddenly don't address the double jeopardy issue anymore. Was he wrong about the 'Requested Party' and double jeopardy or not? You posted the clause about double jeopardy yourself.

"Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted, acquitted or pardoned, or has served the sentence imposed, by the Requested Party for the same acts for which extradition is requested."

You explained that this could possibly be the deciding factor.

With the Knox case, the way Italian justice works (confirming a conviction after sentencing) is so opposite to US justice - that the double jeopardy clause in US law will be an issue. Possibly the deciding one.

The article I linked to explained the 'Requested Party is the United States. Here is another article that explains it.

The Requested Party, in the case of a request for extradition from Italy, will of course be the United Sates. Clearly this is no bar to extradition in the case of Amanda Knox as there has been no judicial process against her in the USA regarding the murder of Meredith Kercher.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index..._misapprehensions_1_in_fact_knox_extradition/

So what is it now? You still think double jeopardy will be a deciding issue?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

So was it blood or to Turnip (pulp), Parsnip (pulp), Horseradish (pulp) or Enamel paint?

Or soil or rusty water.... You are still reversing the burden of proof. There are confirmatory tests for blood that are ELISA-based (therefore quite sensitive, as I have shown), and the forensic community is quite clear about the value of these confirmatory tests. In addition, you still have not explained why the forensic community recommends TMB if it is so useless.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

There is no need to bash her. At first, she had a few minor details wrong which is not so strange since she follows many trials at once. For example, I remember she mentioned at first that partial DNA of the victim was found on the blade of the kitchen knife. This is an error in favor of the defense since it was a full DNA profile. I think she is now mostly correct on the evidence. That you don't agree with the evidence is of course a different story.
http://wendymurphylaw.com/amanda-knox/

Let's look at some things she wrote in 2009:

"1-DNA on the handle of the knife that killed the victim matched Knox - and blood on blade matched the victim...Pro-Amanda forces also forget to note that the knife was found hidden in a shoebox, far back inside a closet at Sollecito's apartment - and that the knife had been scrubbed clean with bleach and an abrasive substance - like a Brillo Pad...Bloody footprints matching all three suspects were found in various places in the cottage where the murder took place and a substantial amount of Sollecito's DNA was found on the victim's bra clasp." What a pile of nonsense from someone who should know better. Her understanding of mixed DNA seems to derive from Barbie Nadeau's--the blind leading the blind.

 

[Perodicticus potto]

and, could you please elaborate on how being a supposedly unshowered female with unwashed hair in sexy clothing contributes to making one guilty of murder?

And when's the last time someone determined a man's guilt or innocence based on the way he dressed?

 

[Katie-L]

Nobody talked about extradition after the first trial. We are back at the same stage now and 'everybody' talks about it. It is a different mind set.
SNIP....

??

Why would anyone discuss extradition after the first trial?

Ms Knox was IN Italy.

 

[sherlockh]

??

Why would anyone discuss extradition after the first trial?

Ms Knox was IN Italy.

Sorry, you are right of course. Not sure what I was thinking Still extradition will only become a real issue after the next 2 appeal trials will find Knox and her Italian ex guilty. It seems a bit early for that discussion.

 

[sherlockh]

Let's look at some things she wrote in 2009:

"1-DNA on the handle of the knife that killed the victim matched Knox - and blood on blade matched the victim...Pro-Amanda forces also forget to note that the knife was found hidden in a shoebox, far back inside a closet at Sollecito's apartment - and that the knife had been scrubbed clean with bleach and an abrasive substance - like a Brillo Pad...Bloody footprints matching all three suspects were found in various places in the cottage where the murder took place and a substantial amount of Sollecito's DNA was found on the victim's bra clasp." What a pile of nonsense from someone who should know better. Her understanding of mixed DNA seems to derive from Barbie Nadeau's--the blind leading the blind.

Bashing Wendy Murphy on this board is not necessary. Did you even listen to the Websleuths Radio Show? She comes across as highly intelligent and certainly knows what she is talking about. She is not afraid to speak her mind and tells it how it is.

I said she made some minor errors at first. 2009 is a long time ago. The shoe box thing is obviously a mix up. Guede did not leave any bloody footprints but shoe prints. The bloody footprints in the bathroom and hallway matched Knox and her ex. Are you denying the mixed DNA findings? There is nothing normal about finding Knox's DNA mixed with the victims blood. Certainly not in the middle of the room of another roommate where a break-in was staged.

 

[sherlockh]

Or soil or rusty water.... You are still reversing the burden of proof. There are confirmatory tests for blood that are ELISA-based (therefore quite sensitive, as I have shown), and the forensic community is quite clear about the value of these confirmatory tests. In addition, you still have not explained why the forensic community recommends TMB if it is so useless.

What burden of proof? The Luminol traces are proven. It can't be scientifically proven to have been blood. That is it. It doesn't mean that it wasn't blood, and there is no rule that you then just ignore the Luminol findings.

Not just soil. Very specific soil containing iron or copper. This was not found in the cottage. You would expect a bunch of prints at the front door if it was an issue. Rusty water in front of the murder room? Seriously? I have not found any examples of crime scenes contaminated with rusty water, soil, fruit pulp or anything else. If this was so common then where are the examples?

I have not read any explanations why TMB was used. Maybe it is just standard protocol. The Massei Report is very clear why the negative TMB test is not proof of non-blood.

 

[Katie-L]

Bashing Wendy Murphy on this board is not necessary.

I don't see any bashing here. People don't agree with her and many don't accept her expertise in this or other cases. On a forum there are many opinions. Some might even have merit.

Did you even listen to the Websleuths Radio Show? She comes across as highly intelligent and certainly knows what she is talking about. She is not afraid to speak her mind and tells it how it is.

There are many intelligent people - even highly intelligent - on this forum and elsewhere who simply do not agree with the theory you're following. Being intelligent doesn't make one's opinion correct.

I'm one of those people who is never afraid to speak my mind - so here it is....

ALL the evidence - and I've looked closely at it - shows that this couple is innocent. A full court with 2 judges and a jury also found the same thing (and they don't even know me).

A higher court even now overturned the original conviction (by refusing to ratify it) - this is what (in the Italian justice system) nullified the appeal. If the original verdict doesn't stand - the Italian legal system nullifies EVERYTHING that came after.

So 2 courts are saying that the original guilty verdict was wrong / not acceptable.

It seriously disturbs me to see people cheering on some slim hope that the evidence will magically be read some different way.

Seems more to me like wishing and hoping that innocent people are victimized by the system.

And that just doesn't seem right.

So I have to ask - in all your wishing that they'll be convicted a 2nd time - what if you're wrong?

Doesn't it make more sense to wish and hope that justice is true, honest and transparent?

 

[sherlockh]

I don't see any bashing here. People don't agree with her and many don't accept her expertise in this or other cases. On a forum there are many opinions. Some might even have merit.

Disagreeing is fine but I think the insults that are thrown at Wendy Murphy in this thread are rather obvious. And it isn't exactly the first time.

Calling Ms. Murphy a legal analyst is like calling Johnny Most a fair and balanced basketball announcer.

What a pile of nonsense from someone who should know better. Her understanding of mixed DNA seems to derive from Barbie Nadeau's--the blind leading the blind.

 

[Malkmus]

There is no need to bash her. At first, she had a few minor details wrong which is not so strange since she follows many trials at once. For example, I remember she mentioned at first that partial DNA of the victim was found on the blade of the kitchen knife. This is an error in favor of the defense since it was a full DNA profile. I think she is now mostly correct on the evidence. That you don't agree with the evidence is of course a different story.
http://wendymurphylaw.com/amanda-knox/

Wendy's four points:

1."More damning was the statement Sollecito gave police when confronted with the discovery of the victim’s DNA on the blade."

False. He never told the police this. It was in his diary and was never introduced at trial, which she also falsely claims. She creates an entire narrative around the diary entry that never happened. This particular point has always been an internet talking point, and is moot considering the knife DNA was rejected.

2. "Knox’s DNA was found mixed with the victim’s blood in five different spots at different places around the apartment where the murder took place."

False. It was three spots of blood in the bathroom the two girls shared.

3. "She said she was at her boyfriend’s apartment at the time of the murder – but phone and computer records – as well as her boyfriend’s own statements – proved that her alibi was a lie."

False. Phone and computer records never proved that she was lying about being at Raf's.

4. "In one of her statements, Knox relayed such specific details about the crime, it revealed her involvement because only someone who was really there would know information such as the room where the murder took place."

False. Nothing in her statements to police turned out to reveal anything about the true nature of the nature of the crime, and was almost entirely wrong about what happened. The victim screaming, if that is what Wendy is referring to, is not something only the killer would know.

Wendy could at least acknowledge the events of the appeal trial, but is concerned with only presenting out of context and factually wrong snippets that were the main talking points circa 2009. To top it off, she makes the offensive and ridiculous claim that anyone who thinks Amanda is innocent is racist. Now where have I heard that one that before?

 

[Malkmus]

(snipped)
I just explained about the Luminol prints. Why repeat this myth again?

Perhaps you could be more specific with what "myth" I'm repeating when you accuse me of something like this. They tested negative for blood. No buts about it.

Perhaps you can explain how someone wipes up bloody footprints without smearing them at all and leaving the shape of the foot perfectly intact?

It is not expected that the Luminol prints tested positive for blood. They were invisible. I showed with scientific quotes that bleach can be ruled out. The only defense strategy left is using generic terms such as iron or copper. I just looked up what that actually means in a common households and even 'fruit juice' seems impossible as it does not react like blood. It should be pulp.
http://www.iapsonline.com/sites/def...mon Interferences with Luminol With Blood.pdf
So was it blood or to Turnip (pulp), Parsnip (pulp), Horseradish (pulp) or Enamel paint? Good luck with that one.

Let's look at the two sides of this argument.

Reasons why the luminol prints most likely are not blood:

1. They tested negative for blood.
2. None of them were in the room where the murder took place and the victim's blood would have come from. And none of the prints lead to the murder room or away from it.
3. The footprints aren't smeared at all which would naturally happen if they were wiped up.
4. Guede's shoeprints were left behind, as well as the bathmat print alleged by the prosecution to be Raf's. A clean-up makes sense. A selective clean-up does not.
5. There are photographs of luminol lighting up on everything from crevices in between the tiles to a ruler a CSI member is holding to even the splotches on their shoes.

Reasons why the luminol prints are blood:

1. AK and RS are guilty so they must have made them in blood.
2. Incredulity that Luminol would have reacted positively to anything in the house but blood.

The only thing that is left is that the narrative where 1 girl is attacked by another girl with her 2 friends seems impossible to some. The new judge will not think like that. He will just follow the evidence.

A narrative that no one seems to be able to come up beyond one-liners like this.

 

[Malkmus]

Disagreeing is fine but I think the insults that are thrown at Wendy Murphy in this thread are rather obvious. And it isn't exactly the first time.

Between the recent article you linked and Chris's excerpt, Wendy is turning out to be one of the least informed person's I've ever heard of talking about this case. What's worse, she's propagating misinformation that actually affects real people's lives that could, for all we know, be very innocent. She deserves to be called out.

When she wrote that the knife was found in a shoebox and scrubbed with a brillo pad, that is indeed nonsense and she should know better as Chris said.

 

[sherlockh]

Perhaps you could be more specific with what "myth" I'm repeating when you accuse me of something like this. They tested negative for blood. No buts about it.

Perhaps you can explain how someone wipes up bloody footprints without smearing them at all and leaving the shape of the foot perfectly intact?

Let's look at the two sides of this argument.

Reasons why the luminol prints most likely are not blood:

1. They tested negative for blood.
2. None of them were in the room where the murder took place and the victim's blood would have come from. And none of the prints lead to the murder room or away from it.
3. The footprints aren't smeared at all which would naturally happen if they were wiped up.
4. Guede's shoeprints were left behind, as well as the bathmat print alleged by the prosecution to be Raf's. A clean-up makes sense. A selective clean-up does not.
5. There are photographs of luminol lighting up on everything from crevices in between the tiles to a ruler a CSI member is holding to even the splotches on their shoes.

Reasons why the luminol prints are blood:

1. AK and RS are guilty so they must have made them in blood.
2. Incredulity that Luminol would have reacted positively to anything in the house but blood.

A narrative that no one seems to be able to come up beyond one-liners like this.

1. Yes, another far less sensitive (than Luminol) presumptive blood test was negative. The far more sensitive test was positive. It does not mean that there was no blood. It means there was very little blood. Like I said three times by now and quoted, the truth is that you know beforehand that you can't scientifically prove for the Luminol traces to have been made in blood since they were not visible.
2. Amanda's footprints were right in front of the murder room. How do you know which way she walked?
3. Why do they have to be smeared or why do you think they weren't so diluted that they weren't invisible to begin with? Smeared prints happen when there is a pool of blood. Not necessarily when you deal with a microscopic amount of blood.
4. The most obvious cleanup was in the bathroom. Blood behind the toilet? Where is the blood in front? Half a footprint and blood on the bathmat? Where is the other half footprint and blood that fell next to the bathmat?
5. Why would a shoe light up to Luminol? When you make up these kind of stories do you never wonder if what you are saying makes any sense?

'Anything in the house but blood'. Seriously? You were wrong on the bleach, and now this is the best you can come up with? I just listed the few items that could be found in a household and that react like blood and they don't make any sense here.

This whole argument is about dumping Luminol evidence because you can't further test it for blood. There is no rule that you should dump evidence because you can't scientifically prove it for a 100%. Same goes for other evidence like witness statements, or the bathmat print for example. A footprint can't be scientifically proven for a 100% to match a person. Still this is important evidence. Science is great but there are judges for a reason.