Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#10

[quesarita]

Hmm....Quesarita, you make good points about their love and infatuation with each other. I understand your point. But couldn't they have gone somewhere else, together? In Europe, it is very easy to get from place to place, I thought, and also US passport can get you into any country without need for visa. They could have gone to any city in Italy, to Germany, to Holland, to Paris, to London, or any other gazillion places in between. Or even Greece, Turkey, etc..

You have a very valid point. Just to me, it seems like they purposefully stayed in Perugia.

Thank you. Well, technically I suppose they could have run off somewhere, but their parents (I believe) were urging each of them to come "home" and they'd only known each other a week, so going together to Seattle or where Raffaele's family lived probably didn't feel like an option.
If they were guilty running off to some other country would make sense but would involve more risk of appearing guilty - I agree with you there. If innocent, staying put would be more natural. I guess I just don't think it was a calculated decision.

 

[aa9511]

They didn't leave town. They stayed because that's where they lived and worked and were trying to find another place to rent....with Amanda.

Oh sorry, the British girls. The ones in the same situation as Amanda, originally from out of the country.

 

[quesarita]

They didn't leave town. They stayed because that's where they lived and worked and were trying to find another place to rent....with Amanda.

Thanks, I was confusing roommates with Meredith's British friends.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Thank you. Well, technically I suppose they could have run off somewhere, but their parents (I believe) were urging each of them to come "home" and they'd only known each other a week, so going together to Seattle or where Raffaele's family lived probably didn't feel like an option.
If they were guilty running off to some other country would make sense but would involve more risk of appearing guilty - I agree with you there. If innocent, staying put would be more natural. I guess I just don't think it was a calculated decision.

Not Raffaele's. Why would he need to go home? He barely knew Meredith and was leaving Perugia in 2 weeks anyways.

 

[aa9511]

Thank you. Well, technically I suppose they could have run off somewhere, but their parents (I believe) were urging each of them to come "home" and they'd only known each other a week, so going together to Seattle or where Raffaele's family lived probably didn't feel like an option.
If they were guilty running off to some other country would make sense but would involve more risk of appearing guilty - I agree with you there. If innocent, staying put would be more natural. I guess I just don't think it was a calculated decision.

Yes, it's very difficult when coming from one perspective, we can view something one way, and the same thing can be viewed a totally different way coming from another perspective.

Yes, if innocent, I agree with you that Amanda may have wanted to stay just to be with Raffaele more, also to keep her independence, which she obviously loved (going home would mean less independence). And she may have felt safe with Raffaele, and thus not feared anything.

I understand what you are saying about calculated decision.

Thank you for being calm and discussing it in this way.

Yes, I agree, that you have to go a little farther out on a limb to think of these "calculations." It is, of course, much easier to think that she is not making these calculations, and instead just living normally and like she does every day.

The only thing I think is, that if we viewed everyone guilty of a murder as innocent, then we would necessary have to go out on a limb to believe their calculations, too. Because almost every one of them has probably had to make some calculations in the aftermath of their actions. And it would be easier for us to think of them as just living normally and doing their day-to-day stuff, rather than think of them being guilty and then having to deceive friends, family, police, detectives, etc.. Because, by necessity, that is more complicated to imagine, then imagining them just living normally and doing everyday stuff.

So if the baseline is "Normal Amanda," by that I mean everyday, regular Amanda - no crime. Then by necessity, anything off of that baseline is going to be a little more complicated.

But that does not mean that the line doesn't waver.

 

[Katody]

Hellmann said that the legal truth as he viewed and weighed the evidence was that, "these defendants did not commit these crimes." But he admitted that there may be truth outside of this, which under that ruling, was outside the courts.

I've seen and read a few interviews with Hellmann and he is convinced of the innocence of Raffaele and Amanda. The pro guilt people ran away with the single taken out of context quote about judicial truth and tried to twist it into something sinister.

 

[Katody]

I answered your question. I believe your question was what is the negative in the guilt scenario of her leaving.

You say there was nothing actually negative and it was stupid mistake on her part. That's fine with me, because it supports innocence much more than it supports guilt. It's a no-brainer to skip town if guilty, like Guede did. Not so much when innocent.

The actual question, the actual issue that has no logical explanation is what made them (especially Raffaele) drop their perfectly good alibi during the interrogation. It's just not something a guilty person would do.

 

[Katody]

But the love and infatuation still does not answer the many holes in their stories.

Holes? There are none.

If only the Perugian authorities' story was so consistent, without holes and contradictions as theirs.

 

[SMK]

I've seen and read a few interviews with Hellmann and he is convinced of the innocence of Raffaele and Amanda. The pro guilt people ran away with the single taken out of context quote about judicial truth and tried to twist it into something sinister.

Well, I am not your typical pro-guilt person; I really liked Hellmann and I was very glad at his ruling. I did not find anything sinister about his post-ruling remarks, and I felt he believed the court had ruled correctly on the matter.

 

[SMK]

I guess all of this back and forth simply shows how important evidence really is.

It's easy enough, when viewing the 2 defendants through the lens of innocence, to imagine that the police and prosecutor jumped to a conclusion, which grew cruder with each step, until all the defendants did and said became suspect for one reason or another.

On the other hand, IF it can be absolutely and positively shown that the bathmat print came from Sollecito, and that the luminol traces are valid indicators of the 2 being at the crime scene; if multiple attackers really are indicated, and a staging of a robbery occurred together with an attempt at a clean up, then that puts a different spin on everything.

I guess if the Supreme Court of Cassation had simply rubber-stamped Hellmann, upholding the acquittals and putting an end to the case, it would have finished all legally, though there would have still been protests and speculation from the opposing side.

As things stand, though, the case has been returned almost to the Massei level, with everything once again in question.

For my part, I want to determine how much evidence really holds up, because it changes everything in retrospect if it does or doesn't. It changes things from speculation to real theory, or the reverse: If the evidence doesn't hold up under intense scrutiny, it dissolves all back to speculation. I guess this is the point of the second appeal process.

 

[aa9511]

You say there was nothing actually negative and it was stupid mistake on her part. That's fine with me, because it supports innocence much more than it supports guilt. It's a no-brainer to skip town if guilty, like Guede did. Not so much when innocent.

The actual question, the actual issue that has no logical explanation is what made them (especially Raffaele) drop their perfectly good alibi during the interrogation. It's just not something a guilty person would do.

Here is a link to my original reply post which you are talking about:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#10


The negative of her leaving was that it might make her seem more suspicious, in two ways:

1) draw unwanted attention to her. Unwanted attention might lead to closer examination of her. For example, let's say police had some more questions for Amanda, such as going over again what was her last interaction with Meredith, or something like that. They discover that Amanda is back in the U.S.. Then they have to figure out how to ask her these questions while she is in U.S., etc., this draws extra attention to her. In the meantime, someone says, "hey by the way what is her alibi for that night?" Closer examination, etc., etc.. Last thing she would have wanted.

2) raise suspicions of her if police were having any questions about her. Example: investigators find some Amanda DNA in the bathroom. If Amanda is there, they can ask her and she will say 'well, yes, that was from when I took a shower that morning, remember? I went to the cottage to take a shower.' Or some other DNA of Amanda, she can say, well I was there at the cottage, I did this or that thing, that is what that must be from. Now, let's say she had already gone back to the U.S.. Investigators find some of her DNA somewhere. Go to ask Amanda some more questions, discover she has gone back to the U.S.. Again, this draws extra attention to her. Now we have this curious Amanda DNA at the murder scene, and yet she has left and is not available for questioning. Perhaps this fact will lead to closer independent examination of her alibi and what she was doing night of murder, etc..

So really, Amanda's thinking was not very far-off. Her act of leaving could have really added extra attention, raised suspicions, etc..

The problem, is, though, that there were innocent people who did not need to be worried about the repercussions of their act of leaving, and so they did leave. And so this places Amanda in the position of being compared with girls in a seemingly similar position, who acted much differently to her in regards to this issue of leaving or not leaving.

However, as I said, these girls were in reality not in the same position as her. Because they did not need to worry about the repercussions of their actions and how it might be interpreted by those close to the investigation.

I guess we do not really know if Amanda made the right decision or not. Because if she had left, and any of the above which I laid out had happened, we would be saying, Oh she should have just stayed in Perugia and not drawn attention to herself.

But since she stayed, we do not know what would have actually happened in the alternative. And so we can say, 'she probably should have just left when the other girls did.'

I guess she was really stuck in the situation of, it could have gone both ways. And she chose to stay, how much difference that made in the big scheme of things, I don't know.

 

[Amber29]

You say there was nothing actually negative and it was stupid mistake on her part. That's fine with me, because it supports innocence much more than it supports guilt. It's a no-brainer to skip town if guilty, like Guede did. Not so much when innocent.

The actual question, the actual issue that has no logical explanation is what made them (especially Raffaele) drop their perfectly good alibi during the interrogation. It's just not something a guilty person would do.

Had she left immediately it would have been absolute proof of guilt.
Aa9511 is right no one close to Meredith noticed RG leaving town 2 days later, people would've questioned Amanda's absence. Not that it matters her and Raffaele couldn't stop talking saying stuff they shouldn't have been.

And we are back to Raffaele changing his stories again.

Ok I'll ask again, do you have a logical reason why RS would say in an interview with media that they arrived 5 hours earlier at the station then what evidence shows to be true?
Why would an innocent person lie like this?
Why not just stick to the facts, that they arrived around 1030pm that night?

 

[Amber29]

Here is a link to my original reply post which you are talking about:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#10


The negative of her leaving was that it might make her seem more suspicious, in two ways:

1) draw unwanted attention to her. Unwanted attention might lead to closer examination of her. For example, let's say police had some more questions for Amanda, such as going over again what was her last interaction with Meredith, or something like that. They discover that Amanda is back in the U.S.. Then they have to figure out how to ask her these questions while she is in U.S., etc., this draws extra attention to her. In the meantime, someone says, "hey by the way what is her alibi for that night?" Closer examination, etc., etc.. Last thing she would have wanted.

2) raise suspicions of her if police were having any questions about her. Example: investigators find some Amanda DNA in the bathroom. If Amanda is there, they can ask her and she will say 'well, yes, that was from when I took a shower that morning, remember? I went to the cottage to take a shower.' Or some other DNA of Amanda, she can say, well I was there at the cottage, I did this or that thing, that is what that must be from. Now, let's say she had already gone back to the U.S.. Investigators find some of her DNA somewhere. Go to ask Amanda some more questions, discover she has gone back to the U.S.. Again, this draws extra attention to her. Now we have this curious Amanda DNA at the murder scene, and yet she has left and is not available for questioning. Perhaps this fact will lead to closer independent examination of her alibi and what she was doing night of murder, etc..

So really, Amanda's thinking was not very far-off. Her act of leaving could have really added extra attention, raised suspicions, etc..

The problem, is, though, that there were innocent people who did not need to be worried about the repercussions of their act of leaving, and so they did leave. And so this places Amanda in the position of being compared with girls in a seemingly similar position, who acted much differently to her in regards to this issue of leaving or not leaving.

However, as I said, these girls were in reality not in the same position as her. Because they did not need to worry about the repercussions of their actions and how it might be interpreted by those close to the investigation.

I guess we do not really know if Amanda made the right decision or not. Because if she had left, and any of the above which I laid out had happened, we would be saying, Oh she should have just stayed in Perugia and not drawn attention to herself.

But since she stayed, we do not know what would have actually happened in the alternative. And so we can say, 'she probably should have just left when the other girls did.'

I guess she was really stuck in the situation of, it could have gone both ways. And she chose to stay, how much difference that made in the big scheme of things, I don't know.

Exactly! It makes perfect sense to me as well why she didn't leave. Not to mention the British girls weren't told not to leave.

 

[Monzoo]

p 215: Follain, A Death in Italy

Sorry, going back a few pages. I regards to the December 2007 interrogation, I find the differences between Follian and Amanda Knox's book to be interesting.

Would you agree with me that Follian gives Mignini's point of view, and AK gives her own?

I wish we had access to the transcripts.it would be interesting to see which was closer to reality.

 

[quesarita]

Sorry, going back a few pages. I regards to the December 2007 interrogation, I find the differences between Follian and Amanda Knox's book to be interesting.

Would you agree with me that Follian gives Mignini's point of view, and AK gives her own?

I wish we had access to the transcripts.it would be interesting to see which was closer to reality.

Yes. Specifically one thing I was wondering about: the account is based on a written transcript, either transcripted at the time or from an audio recording? And that's why Mignini wants it "on the record" that Amanda as been crying for 10 minutes etc, and Amanda's lawyer says, "No, she's not crying, she's calm."
But Follain also puts in a visual description of Amanda "wiping away tears" that would not have been in a transcription. Did he get that from Mignini? If not, from whom else? He wasn't there, right?

 

[SMK]

Sorry, going back a few pages. I regards to the December 2007 interrogation, I find the differences between Follian and Amanda Knox's book to be interesting.

Would you agree with me that Follian gives Mignini's point of view, and AK gives her own?

I wish we had access to the transcripts.it would be interesting to see which was closer to reality.

Yes, it would appear Follain identifies with Mignini and his purview, while Knox is coming from a younger, post-modern perspective.

 

[aa9511]

So did Follain not say where he got this information from? I would think that should have been included in his book.

 

[quesarita]

Yes, it would appear Follain identifies with Mignini and his purview, while Knox is coming from a younger, post-modern perspective.

Not only identifies, it appears Follain promotes Mignini's view by adding visual details that support Mignini's side of the conflict in the written transcript.

 

[SMK]

Yes. Specifically one thing I was wondering about: the account is based on a written transcript, either transcripted at the time or from an audio recording? And that's why Mignini wants it "on the record" that Amanda as been crying for 10 minutes etc, and Amanda's lawyer says, "No, she's not crying, she's calm."
But Follain also puts in a visual description of Amanda "wiping away tears" that would not have been in a transcription. Did he get that from Mignini? If not, from whom else? He wasn't there, right?

I wondered about the "wiping away tears" as well. The only thing I can figure out is that either:

1. Follain sat in on the interrogation

OR

2. He interviewed Amanda's lawyers and asked them what they meant on the transcript, "You say she is crying, but to us, it doesn't seem so.", and they replied, "Well, she would calm down, wipe her tears away" etc.

 

[SMK]

Not only identifies, it appears Follain promotes Mignini's view by adding visual details that support Mignini's side of the conflict in the written transcript.

Yes, but I think Dempsey and Burleigh do this with Amanda as well: The author's slant always comes through in the so-called factual account.