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

[aa9511]

That's right.

But you wrote, that a person guilty of murder will try to stay as far away from the truth as possible!

This is probably not correct. I would say the reverse is true. A culprit says as much as possible the truth (only the incriminating parts would be changed) or invents very simple actions without details.

The involvement of Guede is obvious, deny is not "possible". A culprit won't blame a wrong person in this case.

I do not know the statistics, etc.. If I think what I personally would do in such a situation, I would probably invent a whole different story which was nothing like the reality. That way investigators could not get any clues from what I say.

 

[Katody]

So you're saying he is basically a liar and a fake....

He's a fake for sure. I'm not saying he's a liar. It cannot be excluded he actually truly believes he has some powers. Self delusion reinforced by uncritical followers and disciples is not uncommon among quacks.

 

[Monzoo]

Well, my opinion is, the 3 main people one can find on the internet (Hyatt, Hodges, and one other whose name now escapes me) are not the best people to be engaging in this. I like the old classical linguists such as Earnest Jones (his linguistic analysis of Hamlet), Freud, and Jung. I think theirs would be the more profound analyses of Knox's statements.

I seem to remember from undergraduate psychology courses that Freud's theories have been debunked for the most part. I don't believe that he is used in modern psychology.

 

[Monzoo]

I do not know the statistics, etc.. If I think what I personally would do in such a situation, I would probably invent a whole different story which was nothing like the reality. That way investigators could not get any clues from what I say.

My experience with lying and liars is that they weave their falsehoods into a mostly true story in order to make their lies believe able.

In this case, were I guilty and in Amanda's place, I'd give up Rudy's name but minimize my own participation. If that were the case, wouldn't the police be inclined to believe her?

 

[SMK]

I seem to remember from undergraduate psychology courses that Freud's theories have been debunked for the most part. I don't believe that he is used in modern psychology.

Of course.

This doesn't mean that they ought to have been debunked, though.

Like Paglia, I find Freud still very relevant.

 

[Monzoo]

Of course. This doesn't mean that they ought to have been debunked, though. Like Paglia, I find Freud still very relevant.

This is where we part, then.

 

[SMK]

This is where we part, then.

Right - this is where most everyone parts with me, on this subject.

 

[DerKritiker2011]

I do not know the statistics, etc.. If I think what I personally would do in such a situation, I would probably invent a whole different story which was nothing like the reality. That way investigators could not get any clues from what I say.

That's your opinion, but you won't incriminate Lumumba, if it's obvious that Guedes traces are all over the scene (especially if you have cleaned arround Guedes footprints).

 

[aa9511]

That's your opinion, but you won't incriminate Lumumba, if it's obvious that Guedes traces are all over the scene (especially if you have cleaned arround Guedes footprints).

We'll just have to agree to disagree. It makes perfect sense to me why she would not name Guede, and instead named someone who had no idea about anything that had happened. Patrick could not say anything to incriminate her, he did not know what had happened. He was not in the house. He did not see what took place during the murder. He did not know any information about the murder.

Naming Patrick was not a confession of any kind, because it was not the truth. Naming Patrick would not have revealed any truth about what happened at that house. Please, let's try to go back to that time, during interrogation....not years after when we know what has happened.

Saying she "was there" when Patrick did it was not a confession. Because Patrick was not even there, Patrick was no part in it, and Patrick was a lie. So how is that a confession, I don't know?

I think maybe some are getting hung up because it is so commonly referred to as "confession" when it was not. We all know it was not, even guilty or innocent, because we all know Patrick story is a lie.

Saying she "was there" when Rudy did it would have been much much closer to the truth, don't you agree (from the guilt perspective)? I think that would have been along the lines of a true confession. She would have been confessing to some truth there. Even if part of the truth, it would still be closer to the truth. But she did not confess anything, because she did not say she was there with Rudy - that would have been a true confession. Because we know, independently, we know as fact that Rudy was there and Patrick was not.

But as we know, from guilt perspective, Amanda was not trying to confess. I believe she only put herself "there" by necessity, because she had to "be there" in order to say that Patrick did it. So that is not a confession, because it is not the truth. The whole story is made-up and not true, as we all know that the Patrick story was a lie.

The point of my whole long post is that incriminating Rudy would in a sense have been a confession. And Amanda has never confessed to anything in this case. So why is it hard to believe that she would not incriminate Rudy? And instead incriminate Patrick, which is a lie?

 

[DerKritiker2011]

The point of my whole long post is that incriminating Rudy would in a sense have been a confession. And Amanda has never confessed to anything in this case. So why is it hard to believe that she would not incriminate Rudy? And instead incriminate Patrick, which is a lie?

If she was involved and she had cleaned her and Sollecitos traces but not Guedes then she had knowing, that Guedes DNA, fingerprints and shoeprints were all over the scene.

She would had known: Incriminate Lumumba would be an obvious lie. It makes no sense at all.

I think she had confessed nothing because she wasn't there.

 

[SMK]

If she was involved and she had cleaned her and Sollecitos traces but not Guedes then she had knowing, that Guedes DNA, fingerprints and shoeprints were all over the scene.

She would had known: Incriminate Lumumba would be an obvious lie. It makes no sense at all.

I think she had confessed nothing because she wasn't there.

And yet Lumumba's attorney - among others - and Mignini the original prosecutor, and now Crini the appeal prosecutor, all claim that Knox accused Lumumba to sidetrack the investigation and to divert attention away from herself. It didn't work, obviously, but many - including Patrick himself and his legal team - are convinced this was her motive.

 

[Katody]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. It makes perfect sense to me why she would not name Guede, and instead named someone who had no idea about anything that had happened. Patrick could not say anything to incriminate her, he did not know what had happened. He was not in the house. He did not see what took place during the murder. He did not know any information about the murder.

Naming Patrick was not a confession of any kind, because it was not the truth. Naming Patrick would not have revealed any truth about what happened at that house. Please, let's try to go back to that time, during interrogation....not years after when we know what has happened.

Saying she "was there" when Patrick did it was not a confession. Because Patrick was not even there, Patrick was no part in it, and Patrick was a lie. So how is that a confession, I don't know?

I think maybe some are getting hung up because it is so commonly referred to as "confession" when it was not. We all know it was not, even guilty or innocent, because we all know Patrick story is a lie.

Saying she "was there" when Rudy did it would have been much much closer to the truth, don't you agree (from the guilt perspective)? I think that would have been along the lines of a true confession. She would have been confessing to some truth there. Even if part of the truth, it would still be closer to the truth. But she did not confess anything, because she did not say she was there with Rudy - that would have been a true confession. Because we know, independently, we know as fact that Rudy was there and Patrick was not.

But as we know, from guilt perspective, Amanda was not trying to confess. I believe she only put herself "there" by necessity, because she had to "be there" in order to say that Patrick did it. So that is not a confession, because it is not the truth. The whole story is made-up and not true, as we all know that the Patrick story was a lie.

The point of my whole long post is that incriminating Rudy would in a sense have been a confession. And Amanda has never confessed to anything in this case. So why is it hard to believe that she would not incriminate Rudy? And instead incriminate Patrick, which is a lie?

You make it seem like it was a very deliberate, calculated act.

I can't help thinking that if she was so calculating and so much in control she would have just said they are mistaken and she would just go home (she wasn't under arrest after all).
The next day she would have been on a plane to USA. Yet another day and the DNA and fingerprint results pointing to Guede are out, the case is closed.

 

[Katody]

And yet Lumumba's attorney - among others - and Mignini the original prosecutor, and now Crini the appeal prosecutor, all claim that Knox accused Lumumba to sidetrack the investigation and to divert attention away from herself. It didn't work, obviously, but many - including Patrick himself and his legal team - are convinced this was her motive.

Sure they are, there is money in that 'convincement'.

 

[DerKritiker2011]

And yet Lumumba's attorney - among others - and Mignini the original prosecutor, and now Crini the appeal prosecutor, all claim that Knox accused Lumumba to sidetrack the investigation and to divert attention away from herself. It didn't work, obviously, but many - including Patrick himself and his legal team - are convinced this was her motive.

That's the problem in this case, obviously wrong accusations were done by this parties.

 

[SMK]

Sure they are, there is money in that 'convincement'.

OK - but what was originally in it, for Mignini? It actually made Mignini look bad, as he issued the arrest warrant for Lumumba, who wound up being totally innocent (of course for all we know, Patrick was in cahoots with Guede )

 

[Katody]

OK - but what was originally in it, for Mignini? It actually made Mignini look bad, as he issued the arrest warrant for Lumumba, who wound up being totally innocent (of course for all we know, Patrick was in cahoots with Guede )

Mignini was a <modsnip> who, together with the rest of Perugian medalist cops managed to convince themselves that arresting 3 people before seeing the forensic results was a great idea.

It was their idea that "see you later, good night" meant rape and murder.

It was not the first and not the last time Mignini 'made himself look bad' all on his own, if you care to read about this guy a bit.

 

[aa9511]

If she was involved and she had cleaned her and Sollecitos traces but not Guedes then she had knowing, that Guedes DNA, fingerprints and shoeprints were all over the scene.

She would had known: Incriminate Lumumba would be an obvious lie. It makes no sense at all.

I think she had confessed nothing because she wasn't there.

Yes, I understand your point. Leaving Rudy's traces = "the burglar." So why didn't she just name this "burglar"?

Naming Rudy would mean she had to put herself at the scene of the crime. Otherwise, how would she know he was the one who did it? Or she could have said something like, "Rudy came over to Raffaele's house in a panic and told us what he had done." But then how would she explain not calling police or why they didn't call for help when they found out what Rudy had done? Also, she would have to answer the obvious of, why did Rudy come to you and Raffaele? There would be many lies she would have to come up with to make that story work. The only way she could have said Rudy did it, is if she was somehow there at the house.

Putting herself at the scene of the crime with Rudy would have been a true confession (guilty perspective), whether wholly or partially.

Amanda, from the gulty persepective - why would she confess?

Again, like I said earlier, if she had confessed to something, we would not be in this same position discussing this case like we are.

It is because she didn't confess, that we have a trial.

I think what you're trying to say is that why didn't Amanda name Rudy and then put all the blame on him? In that scenario, she would be at the scene, but blame it all on Rudy.

That would make sense for her to do that, looking at it many years later and knowing that Rudy was convicted and exactly which evidence police have and don't have.....Amanda at that time, she did not know what police would uncover. Maybe she even thought Rudy would run away and they would never catch him, in which case why would she confess if police were not able to catch Rudy, there was no chance the truth of what happened that night would ever be revealed? (t would all remain a big unsolved mystery. Maybe she thought they wouldn't be able to match anything to Rudy. Because, like others have said, he had no reason to be in the house that night and he would not be in any group interrogated or questioned by the police. The people who would be questioned were those close to Meredith and who had known contact with Meredith in the days around her murder. If police were not able to match any of the DNA to Rudy, why would he ever be questioned?

Maybe she and Raffaele thought it would remain a big mystery of who did it? They never catch Rudy. They never match any of the DNA to Rudy.

The reason she left signs of Rudy was not so police catch Rudy - it was to make them believe in "a burglar." Just a burglar. Some strange, random guy.

Maybe she thought, by the time they catch Rudy, I will be back in the U.S., so they cannot catch me there. Maybe she thought if they ever traced back to Rudy and caught him, it didn't matter because by that time she would be gone and safe at home. Safe in the U.S., how could they make her come back to Italy. At least she will then be across the ocean, and with her family.

Even as I am writing this, it is making more and more sense to me.

 

[SMK]

Mignini was a <modsnip> who, together with the rest of Perugian medalist cops managed to convince themselves that arresting 3 people before seeing the forensic results was a great idea.

It was their idea that "see you later, good night" meant rape and murder.

It was not the first and not the last time Mignini 'made himself look bad' all on his own, if you care to read about this guy a bit.

I have read extensively on Mignini: Regarding His childhood, His youth, and the Monster of Florence issues. I think I grasp His essence and the animus of His motivations. I just cannot believe that your simplified version of the truth does justice to Him. He is a very intelligent man. A bit given to mania, (as indeed most great people are) but nonetheless intelligent. Amanda said some things to Him that He couldn't dismiss.

 

[Katody]

I have read extensively on Mignini: Regarding His childhood, His youth, and the Monster of Florence issues. I think I grasp His essence and the animus of His motivations. I just cannot believe that your simplified version of the truth does justice to Him. He is a very intelligent man. A bit given to mania, (as indeed most great people are) but nonetheless intelligent. Amanda said some things to Him that he couldn't dismiss.

Why didn't he get those things written down? What happened to the recording?

You certainly don't mean the "I vaguely remember" voluntary declaration, do you?

 

[SMK]

Why didn't he get those things written down? What happened to the recording?

You certainly don't mean the "I vaguely remember" voluntary declaration, do you?

You didn't even notice!!!!:anguish: