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

[SMK]

SMK, where did you get this translation of her statement? I have never seen that in her statements. It seems very different from every translation I have seen. Here is the link to the documents page on AK's website...

http://www.amandaknox.com/the-meredith-kercher-murder/

Yes, it is very different to the other ones, and there was even a headline based on it that said something like, "Foxy Knoxy: 'We wanted to have some fun'." I had it in my Google Drive files; it was taken from the PMF forum (an older 2010 thread).

 

[SMK]

Yes and PL is Congolese. My point was only that RG had lived in Perugia for many years. He wasn't a homeless drifter. I think I've read he had first lived in Perugia at age 5.

Yes, you are right, and I think he was adopted by a wealthy family there, but became estranged from them.

 

[redheadedgal]

I believe the coat in this picture can be described as grey and there's a scarf there as well, maybe even a hat.
http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=3418

the only "coat" i see is a jean jacket...

 

[Monzoo]

Yes, it is very different to the other ones, and there was even a headline based on it that said something like, "Foxy Knoxy: 'We wanted to have some fun'." I had it in my Google Drive files; it was taken from the PMF forum (an older 2010 thread).

It seems like a mistranslation,to me. You can find the original Italian at Injustice in Perugia.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/PDF-Files.html

 

[SMK]

http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/quintavalle/

In fact it should be remembered that Mr. Quintavalle, questioned by the Police who were searching for useful information in the days immediately following the perpetration of the crime, by which time the newspapers and the media were busy working on the story on a wider scale, did not mention the girl who had waited for the opening of the store on the morning of 2 November and had then entered as soon as he had opened to the public, heading to the section where household and hygiene products were on display (even if then – according to the same Quintavalle – she left without buying anything). Nor did he come forward in the following days or in the following months to report what had happened. In fact he presented himself to the Police following continuous requests [sollecitazioni] by a young apprentice journalist who lived in the area of his store, only one year later, declaring to be convinced, thanks mostly to the color of her eyes (blue) and of her complexion (very pale), that the girl who had entered his store that morning was indeed Amanda Knox.

Hellmann goes on to quote transcript.

I understand.

But Galati gives an ample refutation of all in his Appeal to the Supreme Court of Cassation: pp 39-41-

he asserts that Hellmann took Q out of context, misrepresented his words, did not take as a whole.

 

[SMK]

the only "coat" i see is a jean jacket...

I see a pair of dark jeans, a grey coat, a scarf, and a couple of towels.

 

[redheadedgal]

Yes, it is very different to the other ones, and there was even a headline based on it that said something like, "Foxy Knoxy: 'We wanted to have some fun'." I had it in my Google Drive files; it was taken from the PMF forum (an older 2010 thread).

It seems like a mistranslation,to me. You can find the original Italian at Injustice in Perugia.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/PDF-Files.html

seems it was taken from the daily mail and other UK sites :facepalm:

http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=we+were+all+separate.+diya+wanted+meredith.+yes%2c+we+were+in+the+house.&d=4976511107598112&mkt=en-CA&setlang=en-CA&w=OhfJJsmzgKzXDkMPl2Y3Ct6YGaky6x3U

 

[redheadedgal]

I see a pair of dark jeans, a grey coat, a scarf, and a couple of towels.

dark jeans, lighter demin jacket nr pillow and maybe a sweatshirt? can't really tell...

 

[MichaelSmith]

30 minutes is far more than enough for a drug fueled error and escalation. All it takes is a wrong approach, a rebuff - I think being high or drunk or both can make things escalate.

As I remarked in my above post: The statement of Amanda's was inadmissable because she had no attorney. But IF one wants to entertain an escalation, one only needs to replace Lumumba with Guede in this scenario.

It could happen in a matter of 10 mintues, more or less - the error, the escalation, the violence, the ensuing panic. Just so much speculation....

It's absurd and fanciful imo the lovebirds after watching Ameile and trying to then watch a cartoon would assist Guede who they didn't know in a rape and murder. If they had of gone to the cottage and found him there, they would have defended Meredith if he attacked her, not join the guy in butchering a friend within 10-30mins of arriving.

There's no evidence of drink or hard drugs and why would they want to leave his apartment in the first place to party when the night before was the big night for students to party and Raffaele had no interest.

 

[Myvice]

In this photo it looks pretty gray to me.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=36&image_id=3007

 

[aa9511]

IIRC, dempsey said the british girls left b/c they were "terrified" that someone was targeting british girls... obviously this doesn't apply to amanda...

You're right, it doesn't. But it does seem like Amanda is always being made into some kind of a mold - moving or not moving, saying or not saying, at the whim of others. Like she cannot think for herself.

If it were me, do you think I would be thinking about origin of country? No. I would be thinking, omigosh someone got brutally murdered in the room right next to mine. (Exclamation, exclamation!!!!!).

 

[aa9511]

Okie. It was the perfect time for a book.

Anyway, isn't that the "in" thing to do nowadays?

 

[aa9511]

I have not read her book, only seen some that's been posted.

The "first call" to mom is what stands out to me though. She decided in her book to include a detailed call to her mom that supposedly was made before she called anyone that morning. This is a lie, there was no call to her mom before Filomena.

Now this call debate has always been an issue between guilty/innocent opinions.
It makes it worse IMO that now AK tries to make something up to fit the timeline and make that call to her mother make sense. She was right a call at that time to her mother would've made perfect sense, only she didn't make that call.

I'd love to go through her book and find more of these but I won't buy it.

I read it sometimes in the bookstore. What I have noticed is that when discussing things surrounding the crime, she goes from evidence-point to evidence-point. She, IMO, obviously tries to refute and/or make up stories for each one of the strongest prosecution evidence-points against her, instead of just telling her story naturally. MOO.

 

[aa9511]

Well, my son took it out from the library, and then I "borrowed" it from him

OK, yes, I do see that. ( I have the tendency when reading to begin to view things the way the author wants me to , so I have a difficult time being objective. ) She does make the call to Mom seem so natural that I didn't even notice it didn't coincide with the timeline.

I did note that her scooting along with the bathmat had been omitted from the text.

On p. 80, of the text version (I memorized the page number), she awkwardly fits in a story to excuse away her reaction when being asked to provide fingerprints. She says, the gravity of the situation SUDDENLY hit her (apparently right at that very moment), and she was SUDDENLY overcome with emotion, and all the emotion she had been bottling up just came flowing out of her (right at that very moment).

That is just one example where she, IMO, makes up stuff to excuse away possible connections to her guilt.

 

[Katody]

On p. 80, of the text version (I memorized the page number), she awkwardly fits in a story to excuse away her reaction when being asked to provide fingerprints. She says, the gravity of the situation SUDDENLY hit her (apparently right at that very moment), and she was SUDDENLY overcome with emotion, and all the emotion she had been bottling up just came flowing out of her (right at that very moment).

That is just one example where she, IMO, makes up stuff to excuse away possible connections to her guilt.

Nothing like this in there, and I have the book in my hands.
<modsnip>

 

[redheadedgal]

If it were me, do you think I would be thinking about origin of country? No. I would be thinking, omigosh someone got brutally murdered in the room right next to mine. (Exclamation, exclamation!!!!!).

do you have statistics to show that most people who live in close proximity to a brutally murdered murder victim immediately move out of the country?

Anyway, isn't that the "in" thing to do nowadays?

if it's an "in" thing to want to share your story and/or pay off your debts, then i guess, yes

I read it sometimes in the bookstore. What I have noticed is that when discussing things surrounding the crime, she goes from evidence-point to evidence-point. She, IMO, obviously tries to refute and/or make up stories for each one of the strongest prosecution evidence-points against her, instead of just telling her story naturally. MOO.

i would imagine she gets asked the same questions over and over, and reads the same misinformation all over the internet... so while including all these things may read as unnatural, it was necessary to include them.

 

[Katody]

i would imagine she gets asked the same questions over and over, and reads the same misinformation all over the internet... so while including all these things may read as unnatural, it was necessary to include them.

I don't think she was bothered by the internet black PR campaign that much. It's simpler than that. First when writing a book the editor usually tells you to cut down a lot of non essential stuff. Second, the book addresses the issues that were raised in the actual media, and in court, by the prosecution, by Maresca, Pacelli and Massei.
That's why the vibrator issue is described ( Guess how many times Pacelli mentioned the vibrator in Nencini's court :facepalm and the bathmat is not.

The internet "enthusiasts" may find it indicative of guilt, but they are reduced to that anyway. Guede who had a history of impudent break-ins left bloody prints and DNA and matches the timeline of the crime perfectly.
Amanda can't be shoehorned into any kind of scenario. There's no possible timeline, there are no traces of her in the room, there is no motive.

The only thing that can be done is seeking obscure indications of guilt in her every move and every word she writes or says.

 

[redheadedgal]

In this photo it looks pretty gray to me.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=36&image_id=3007

1) that's raffaele's coat... amanda was cold, and he gave her his. documented fact: http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=ra...lang=en-CA&w=U77lJd_nneSrr79BCCAM7YiFHCOcbc7W

2) how could the coat worn by her in that photo be photographed later in crime scene photos of her bed?

 

[aa9511]

Nothing like this in there, and I have the book in my hands.
<modsnip>

Ummm, okay, I will check the page number out again next time I look at it.

It is in there<modsnip> I know 100% that it is in there. Perhaps I got the page number wrong, but I know that it is in the book.

<modsnip>

I did not say I memorized the book, I only said I memorized that particular page number (as I had just read it earlier that day), as I wanted to discuss that particular section with someone I know who has already read the book.

 

[aa9511]

do you have statistics to show that most people who live in close proximity to a brutally murdered murder victim immediately move out of the country?




if it's an "in" thing to want to share your story and/or pay off your debts, then i guess, yes




i would imagine she gets asked the same questions over and over, and reads the same misinformation all over the internet... so while including all these things may read as unnatural, it was necessary to include them.

Well, it makes sense since Amanda's home was actually in a different country. So I believe your "statistics for immediately leaving the country" is a little exxagerated, IMO. As obviously, most people would not be there from out-of-the country in the first place.

I was saying "in" thing because nowadays, it seems everyone involved in something public writes a book about it.

Yes, you are right. But, IMO, she could have addressed those points in more of a flowing telling of her story. It just seems, IMO, that she jumps from evidence-poiint to evidence-point, specifically in the section relating to the day before, day of, and several days after the crime. That is My Opinion Only.