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

[aa9511]

I think that the following is the best floorplan I have seen for the cottage. Although the washer/dryer is located in the wrong spot. It shows that there really is no way to see into the larger bathroom toilet area from the living room/kitchen area. Even if the light was on there is no way to know for sure that Meredith would go into the bathroom to see who it was.

Thanks to SMK for telling me how to do the thumbnails!

Yes, you might be right.

 

[aa9511]

Which is a contradiction. According to the above scenario, Amanda should have known Guedes DNA evidence.

Well, if she had said Rudy did it, she was there with Rudy, that would have been the truth. And coming from the guilty perspective, usually guilty people will try to stay as far away from the truth as possible. Placing herself on the scene with Rudy would have been pretty dumb at the time if she was trying to deny any involvement.

What she should have done, in hindsight, is admit to the 3 of them being at the scene, but then put all the blame on Rudy. Something like, Rudy snapped, I don't know what happened, I was hiding in the kitchen covering up my ears. Then I did the cover-up because I didn't know what else to do. She might have gotten a few years less with that. Or, as SMK pointed out, she might still have gotten same number of years as if she herself had committed the murder, I don't know.

But of course, that is looking at it from hindsight. Amanda on the day of that interrogation, I think she just wanted to stay far away from the truth as possible.

 

[DerKritiker2011]

And coming from the guilty perspective, usually guilty people will try to stay as far away from the truth as possible.

I don't think so. Could you give me some sources for this claim?

 

[SMK]

Well, if she had said Rudy did it, she was there with Rudy, that would have been the truth. And coming from the guilty perspective, usually guilty people will try to stay as far away from the truth as possible. Placing herself on the scene with Rudy would have been pretty dumb at the time if she was trying to deny any involvement.

What she should have done, in hindsight, is admit to the 3 of them being at the scene, but then put all the blame on Rudy. Something like, Rudy snapped, I don't know what happened, I was hiding in the kitchen covering up my ears. Then I did the cover-up because I didn't know what else to do. She might have gotten a few years less with that. Or, as SMK pointed out, she might still have gotten same number of years as if she herself had committed the murder, I don't know.

But of course, that is looking at it from hindsight. Amanda on the day of that interrogation, I think she just wanted to stay far away from the truth as possible.

Yes, but you must admit, accusing Patrick got her and Sollecito arrested and charged right along with him.

Why not just name Guede, and let the brunt fall on him?

I have always found her accusation of Patrick baffling, even viewed from an innocence perspective, but especially from the guilt perspective.

The question is, what did she think would be accomplished? Crini says sidetracking of the investigation. But it was not sidetracked. Was she really so out of it that in her mind Lumumba replaced Guede (assuming she was there )? If I kill someone, and I say aa9511 did it, I am trying to go free and get you arrested.

But this is not what happened at all. Whether innocent OR guilty, why not simply keep saying, "I never met Patrick. I never left the apt. " Does she have problems with reality? Did she think PL would not have an alibi? What was the matter with her; what could she have been thinking of?

 

[aa9511]

I don't think so. Could you give me some sources for this claim?

Ummm, no, I don't. I didn't think I needed sources for that. I just thought of it as a common sense thing - meaning, people guilty of a murder, who don't want to get caught, usally give a story which is not the truth. If they told the truth, that would be a confession.

I'm afraid I don't understand your question.

 

[SMK]

Ummm, no, I don't. I didn't think I needed sources for that. I just thought of it as a common sense thing - meaning, people guilty of a murder, who don't want to get caught, usally give a story which is not the truth. If they told the truth, that would be a confession.

I'm afraid I don't understand your question.

I would agree, it is common sense that people who have committed crimes and don't want to admit to this, will lie.

There is a theory out there (by FBI forensic psychiatrist Andrew G Hodges) that says all criminals are always confessing in special subconscious language (he calls this "thought print analysis"). It's kind of like statement analysis, albeit more symbolic. I wish he would analyze the thoughtprints of Knox.

 

[aa9511]

Yes, but you must admit, accusing Patrick got her and Sollecito arrested and charged right along with him.

Why not just name Guede, and let the brunt fall on him?

I have always found her accusation of Patrick baffling, even viewed from an innocence perspective, but especially from the guilt perspective.

The question is, what did she think would be accomplished? Crini says sidetracking of the investigation. But it was not sidetracked. Was she really so out of it that in her mind Lumumba replaced Guede (assuming she was there )? If I kill someone, and I say aa9511 did it, I am trying to go free and get you arrested.

But this is not what happened at all. Whether innocent OR guilty, why not simply keep saying, "I never met Patrick. I never left the apt. " Does she have problems with reality? Did she think PL would not have an alibi? What was the matter with her; what could she have been thinking of?

It makes pretty clear sense to me. She got panicked when Raffaele changed his story and she no longer had a clear alibi. She was counting on Raffaele, they were counting on each other to be each other's alibi. So when that showed signs of unraveling, she panicked.

I don't know what the confusion is, really. She was a guilty person who panicked. MOO.

In all honesty, if I was guilty of the murder, in the same situation with my alibi gone, I would do and say whatever necessary to even temporarily buy myself some time.

Maybe she didn't think. Maybe she thought, but figured by the time police figure it out, she'll be back safe in America with her Mom....she probably thought, "how can they get me there?" That would make perfect sense to me. Run away. Go back to your country, go back to safety, how could they "catch" her there?

At the time, I don't think she would be thinking of extradition, blah blah. Maybe she thought she'd get "caught," but how would they physically bring her back to Italy to put her in jail?

The thing I would be thinking at the time was, "get me back to the U.S." Anything to get me back to the U.S..

 

[SMK]

It makes pretty clear sense to me. She got panicked when Raffaele changed his story and she no longer had a clear alibi. She was counting on Raffaele, they were counting on each other to be each other's alibi. So when that showed signs of unraveling, she panicked.

I don't know what the confusion is, really. She was a guilty person who panicked. MOO.

In all honesty, if I was guilty of the murder, in the same situation with my alibi gone, I would do and say whatever necessary to even temporarily buy myself some time.

Maybe she didn't think. Maybe she thought, but figured by the time police figure it out, she'll be back safe in America with her Mom....she probably thought, "how can they get me there?" That would make perfect sense to me. Run away. Go back to your country, go back to safety, how could they "catch" her there?

At the time, I don't think she would be thinking of extradition, blah blah. Maybe she thought she'd get "caught," but how would they physically bring her back to Italy to put her in jail?

The thing I would be thinking at the time was, "get me back to the U.S." Anything to get me back to the U.S..

OK, I guess I am judging it too much by what already happened (Lumumba, Knox, and Sollecito were all placed under arrest).

If police told me they had hard evidence that I was at a crime scene, I would tell them they must be mistaken. (Was it her memory loss or the knowledge that she really was there? It depends on your perspective).

So I guess what you're saying is, she thought they'd let her go (even though she admitted to being there, and covering her ears). She thought Edda would come and fly her home, and Patrick would go to jail, at least temporarily. Yes, I understand now.

 

[SMK]

Didn't she tell her mother she definitely wanted to stay in Perugia? and not come home? Or is that just the Lifetime movie?

In any case her mother seemed to want to get her out of Italy prior to her arrest.

 

[TorisMom003]

Well, if she had said Rudy did it, she was there with Rudy, that would have been the truth. And coming from the guilty perspective, usually guilty people will try to stay as far away from the truth as possible. Placing herself on the scene with Rudy would have been pretty dumb at the time if she was trying to deny any involvement.

What she should have done, in hindsight, is admit to the 3 of them being at the scene, but then put all the blame on Rudy. Something like, Rudy snapped, I don't know what happened, I was hiding in the kitchen covering up my ears. Then I did the cover-up because I didn't know what else to do. She might have gotten a few years less with that. Or, as SMK pointed out, she might still have gotten same number of years as if she herself had committed the murder, I don't know.

But of course, that is looking at it from hindsight. Amanda on the day of that interrogation, I think she just wanted to stay far away from the truth as possible.

According to Amanda and RS they weren't there at all. So if they weren't there and didn't know that RG was the killer then how could they blame him? For those that don't believe that AK and RS are guilty then it makes sense that they couldn't accuse RG.

Imagine being accused of a crime you didn't commit, in a foreign country, being interrogated in a language you don't really understand, for hours at a time, without a lawyer present. Do any of us know what we would do or would not do? The police will say whatever they can to get a confession or information. I highly doubt that this changes in another country.

MOO

 

[whoanellie]

FBI forensic psychiatrist Andrew G Hodges

Do you have a source or link showing that Hodges worked for the FBI?

 

[SMK]

Do you have a source or link showing that Hodges worked for the FBI?

OK, he was a consultant forensic psychiatrist to the FBI: It has been many years since I read him, but I did recall the FBI connection. He consulted for them, which means his expertise was recognize and trusted:


Andrew G. Hodges, M.D:

• board-certified psychiatrist more than 30 years of clinical experience in private practice
• former professor of psychiatry at the University of Alabama School of Medicine
• groundbreaking “super intelligence” psychotherapy technique made him a renowned forensic profiler.
• consultant to the FBI and law enforcement authorities nationwide
• criminal investigators and journalists used his expertise in cases ranging from the high-profile disappearance of Natalee Holloway in 2005 to the murder of JonBenet Ramsey in 1996.

Presented his profiling approach at an F.B.I. conference in Quantico, Virginia and wrote article profiling the O.J. Simpson case for a major F.B.I. publication.

http://www.andrewghodges.com/About.aspx

http://www.forensicthoughtprints.com/recognition.html

 

[whoanellie]

OK, he was a consultant forensic psychiatrist to the FBI: It has been many years since I read him, but I did recall the FBI connection. He consulted for them, which means his expertise was recognize and trusted:


Andrew G. Hodges, M.D. is a board-certified psychiatrist with more than 30 years of clinical experience in private practice, and a former professor of psychiatry at the University of Alabama School of Medicine. Dr. Hodges’ groundbreaking “super intelligence” psychotherapy technique cemented his position as a renowned forensic profiler.

A consultant to the FBI and law enforcement authorities nationwide, criminal investigators and journalists have sought Dr. Hodges’ expertise in cases ranging from the high-profile disappearance of Natalee Holloway in 2005 to the murder of JonBenet Ramsey in 1996.

Presented his profiling approach at an F.B.I. conference in Quantico, Virginia and wrote article profiling the O.J. Simpson case for a major F.B.I. publication.

http://www.andrewghodges.com/About.aspx

His own website makes no mention of his ever having been a consultant for the FBI.

http://www.andrewghodges.com/About.aspx

 

[SMK]

His own website makes no mention of his ever having been a consultant for the FBI.

http://www.andrewghodges.com/About.aspx

Well, writing for their major publication and speaking at a conference - all from his own website - would certainly count as consulting.

From his website:

Author Publications

“Suicidal Threats: Reading Between the Lines,” Suicide and Law Enforcement, FBI Behavioral Science Unit, Quantico, Va, 2002 (Article explaining new forensic approach and the advantages to law enforcement)from Andrew G Hodges site, cited an linked above

Presented his profiling approach at an F.B.I. conference in Quantico, Virginia and wrote article profiling the O.J. Simpson case for a major F.B.I. publication.

http://www.andrewghodges.com/About.aspx

I have read many of his books and he does mention the FBI connection - of this, I am certain.

In any event, he did not consult on Knox, so he basically is irrelevant here (although his theory is not)

By the way, I find an MD in psychiatry more impressive than any connection with the FBI .....

ETA: The first link I cited is also a website of Hodges, but it is his blog, so I removed the link and transposed the material.
Here is the link to his "About Dr. Hodges" : http://denialbusters.com/?page_id=5

 

[whoanellie]

Well, writing for their major publication and speaking at a conference - all from his own website - would certainly count as consulting.

Not as far as I am concerned.

 

[SMK]

Not as far as I am concerned.

OK, it suffices for him and for others.

As you can see by the link and the "About Dr. Hodges" section, he himself says he has consulted for the FBI. I guess this remains between himself and their organization.

But let's not waste too much time on this, as he has never spoken about Amanda Knox or the Kercher murder.

I was mentioning his theory, which can be applied to Knox.

 

[SMK]

By the way - to make an end of Dr. Hodges - here is how his thought print analysis would work with Amanda Knox's email to the Court of Nencini:

Hodges would say the email is a confession.
That the accusations Knox makes about the prosecution are really Knox speaking of herself.
(see Hodges on retired Detective Lou Smit's letter; A Mother Gone Bad )

 

[whoanellie]

OK, it suffices for him and for others.

As you can see by the link and the "About Dr. Hodges" section, he himself says he has consulted for the FBI. I guess this remains between himself and their organization.

But let's not waste too much time on this, as he has never spoken about Amanda Knox or the Kercher murder.

I was mentioning his theory, which can be applied to Knox.

I have spoken at conferences but I certainly wouldn't claim that I "consulted" for the organization sponsoring the conference. I have published papers in journals and I certainly wouldn't claim that I "consulted" for the organization whose name was on the journal. And I don't know any one who would make such a claim.

He certainly isn't an "FBI forensic psychiatrist".

 

[whoanellie]

By the way - to make an end of Dr. Hodges - here is how his thought print analysis would work with Amanda Knox's email to the Court of Nencini:

Hodges would say the email is a confession.
That the accusations Knox makes about the prosecution are really Knox speaking of herself.
(see Hodges on retired Detective Lou Smit's letter; A Mother Gone Bad )

What is your basis for saying this? How do you know what Hodges would say?
If you are correct about what he would say, what is the scientific/medical/psychiatric basis for this claim? Is this claim based on scientific research? Has the research supporting Dr. Hodges theories been published in peer reviewed journals and are his theories generally accepted by the psychiatric community?

 

[redheadedgal]

re: the "compatibility" of the knife and stain

overlay @ PMF:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=43&image_id=3674


otto's analysis:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#9



this is how i see it: the yellow dots outline a much smaller knife than RS's knife:

(and didn't mignini himself came up with the theory TWO knives were used b/c the stain didn't match RS's knife?)

<modsnip>