Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#13

[otto]

Do you think it's acceptable for college kids or any tourist in a foreign country to spend up to 6 years in jail all for signing a false witness statement in the middle of the night in a foreign language they didn't speak well without a lawyer present?

I don't. That's appalling any civilized country would allow that to happen.

18-22 year olds commit murder. This is college age. Tourists in foreign countries come in all ages. So we have an 18-20 year old tourist that had one year at the University of Washington in Seattle, and she was taking a gap year to travel and study Italian language. She spent almost four years in jail, not six. Three of those years are for her confirmed slander conviction. This is not an innocent woman without criminal convictions. Amanda Knox is a convicted criminal for the remainder of her life and no one can dispute that it is just. In reality, she spent about 11 months in jail for her murder conviction so far.

The "false witness statement" from November 5, 2007, was excluded from the trial. If Knox had not given written statements on November 6 and 7, the statement on November 5 would have never been heard, as it was excluded from the trial. The statements from Knox on November 6, 7, and 10 are the problem.

No civilized country, like Italy, allowed a false accusation taken after midnight without a lawyer, to be used as evidence. It was not. It was completely excluded from the evidence. Knox was convicted of slander on the basis of her November 6, 7 and 10 statements.

 

[otto]

I have Ficarra arriving at 11pm and saying she saw the officers from the SCO already speaking to Amanda and the interrupter had been called. Raffaele's statement wasn't signed till 3.00-3.30am.

That must be where he gets his "five hours" from (in his book). It was five hours between the time that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito arrived at the police station (just before 11PM Nov 5) and the time that he signed a statement to the effect that he lied about what he did at the time of the murder of his girlfriend's roommate (3AM Nov 6).

He must be imagining that Knox was flipping cartwheels and stretching or doing yoga exercises until he signed a statement at 3AM, but in fact she was collected about 70-90 minutes after he was first questioned, when he first spilled about rubbish, and she first spilled the false accusation against Patrick. Was it about 4 in the morning when she was all done with her translator?

 

[otto]

My only issue is, then why would he use past tense....only a crazy girl did and she has mental issues. Because they are still in this "fame"/noteriety. Unless he is saying Amanda liked it a lot in the beginning, but doesn't anymore?

Since he uses past tense, such as a woman that "wanted" fame, we have to look to women that Sollecito has known in his past life and who wanted fame. Up until the murder, Sollecito had no fame, so the woman with the fame by association objective (text complaint from Sollecito) came after the murder. Since Sollecito became part of the Kercher murder, Knox is associated with him. Is she a mentally unstable fame seeker?

She and her family drew attention to themselves with clothing (oversized Beattles t-shirt, hotpants) and courtroom attitude. Posing at the scene of the crime was perceived in poor taste. Knox's family gained fame while she lost hair in prison. The US media (PR Firm) provided a skewed interpretation of the trial and Knox gained fame, celebrity and notoriety as a wrongfullyconvicted.com InjusticeinPerugia inspiration. That was somewhat corrected with the English translation of the Massei Report, but the fame seeking was very apparent .. murdertainment that Nancy Grace won't touch.

Did Knox seek fame through her association with the murder of Meredith Kercher? Yes. She still does. Meredith was murdered in 2007, and the family has been clear, throughout, that they do not want any association with the accuseds. Knox, in 2013, is still making demands and requests that Meredith's family associate with her, the accused. She refuses to respect the most basic of requests for privacy. Yes, if six years after the murder the suspect is making a spectacle of herself as she continues to attempt to contact the victim's family and visit the victim's grave, due to a deranged mind or fame as the guiding factor; like with Knox, fame can be the only option. If Knox, the accused, is continuing to attempt to contact the victim's family six years after the murder, something is wrong ... and it's not because the accused is innocent. Each time she surfaces with this request, she gets media attention and fame.

 

[Snoods]

Agghhh, Bill_C I just was in the process of wriitng you back a long response - and I have lost it due to pushing some button accidentally. :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

I will have to write it again later, when I have more patience.

Aw I'm sorry, I hate that! Sometimes if I'm typing a long post I'll copy every couple of paragraphs as I go because it drives me nuts when I accidentally lose one ullhair:.

 

[MichaelSmith]

That must be where he gets his "five hours" from (in his book). It was five hours between the time that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito arrived at the police station (just before 11PM Nov 5) and the time that he signed a statement to the effect that he lied about what he did at the time of the murder of his girlfriend's roommate (3AM Nov 6).

He must be imagining that Knox was flipping cartwheels and stretching or doing yoga exercises until he signed a statement at 3AM, but in fact she was collected about 70-90 minutes after he was first questioned, when he first spilled about rubbish, and she first spilled the false accusation against Patrick. Was it about 4 in the morning when she was all done with her translator?

Donnino first left Amanda and the interrogation room at 7.30am to grab a coffee after typing up Amanda's 3 paragraph statement which she supposedly signed at 5.45am. Then she waited to be replaced by Aida Colatone who took over at 8am.

 

[Snoods]

Hi Snoods, the evidence that it was not just Rudy is constantly being discussed (more like debated), so if you just follow along for a little while, or read a little back in this thread and the last, you will get a pretty good idea of what all that evidence is, as well as the counter-arguments to it.

I would just like to say something re: staging. When someone stages something, they want to make it appear a certain way. In this case, if we believe in staging and manipulation of the crime scene, that is because the perps wanted to make it appear a certain way. Now what way would that be? Would they want to manipulate it to say - a dog came in and attacked Meredith (no one will believe)? Or would they want to manipulate it to something like - a burglar, possibly sociopathic burglar, came in and raped and assaulted and murdered a young woman (everyone will believe)?

Perhaps the reason they "staged" it to make it look that way is PRECISELY because it is so easy for people to believe.

I have followed along, not every single post, but for the most part. I'm a bit embarrassed my posts come across as if I haven't. I know it's a little annoying when someone doesn't follow a case and randomly jumps in with uninformed posts, sorry if it appears that way.

Is the definition of staging meant for me? I know what staging is, I just don't believe all the complicated explanations that are being used to fit RS and AK into the murder. I also don't believe that AK and RS would know to replicate a break-in similar to RG's MO, with a rock thrown through an elevated window. This is my opinion.

 

[otto]

Donnino first left Amanda and the interrogation room at 7.30am to grab a coffee after typing up Amanda's 3 paragraph statement which she supposedly signed at 5.45am. Then she waited to be replaced by Aida Colatone who took over at 8am.

Who is Donnino?

She can't be the translator if was replaced at 8 am.

What is her relevance in the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher?

 

[MichaelSmith]

Innuendo doesn't have context.

It begins to look like parsed iterations.

Translator/meditator Anna Donnino first left the interrogation room at 7.30am to go get a coffee after typing up the 3 paragraph statement from Amanda, then she waited for Aida Colatone to replace her at 8am.

That's what she testified. <modsnip>

 

[Harmony 2]

YOU

If you see the above word in your posts it may be wise to go back and review your post before hitting submit. At websleuths we do not allow personalization of posts and the use of the word YOU is a good gauge as to whether a post is addressing the post and not the poster.​

 

[Amber29]

I have Ficarra arriving at 11pm and saying she saw the officers from the SCO already speaking to Amanda and the interrupter had been called. Raffaele's statement wasn't signed till 3.00-3.30am.

So she was waiting only 30 mins not 5 hours. An interrupter was called to talk to AK because Raffaele was no longer supporting her alibi. Either way this timeline was discussed in testimony with mulpitple witnesses so Raffaele has no reason to lie about how long Amanda was waiting.

Do you have a link to the statement Raffaele signed?

 

[MichaelSmith]

So she was waiting only 30 mins not 5 hours. An interrupter was called to talk to AK because Raffaele was no longer supporting her alibi. Either way this timeline was discussed in testimony with mulpitple witnesses so Raffaele has no reason to lie about how long Amanda was waiting.

Do you have a link to the statement Raffaele signed?

I would encourage reading Rita Ficarra's testimony to see what she said. The interrupter was not called because he was no longer supporting her alibi.

 

[Amber29]

I would encourage reading Rita Ficarra's testimony to see what she said. The interrupter was not called because he was no longer supporting her alibi.

So she signed her first statement almost 2 hours before Raffaele and he was still supporting her alibi?

 

[MichaelSmith]

It's complicated trying to reconstruct it because the times are literally all over the place. Ficarra new nothing about why Amanda was there when she arrived but it was Giobbi who set it up and his officers talking to her at 11pm. She says she finds out an interrupter had been called but there's no mention it's because of a dropped alibi. She scolded Amanda for saying she was tired and the only thing Ficarra was interested in when she started questioning her immediately was who had been to the cottage and what names Amanda could give her. This is when Amanda mentions Guede but not by name or how to contact him along with the names of other people.

 

[MichaelSmith]

I don't think Donnino's 12.30am arrival time is accurate at all because if she was called before 11pm and it's not known how much before then it's a bit of a stretch to think it took 90+ mins to get to work even if she did live 30 miles away.

 

[Amber29]

It's complicated trying to reconstruct it because the times are literally all over the place. Ficarra new nothing about why Amanda was there when she arrived but it was Giobbi who set it up and his officers talking to her at 11pm. She says she finds out an interrupter had been called but there's no mention it's because of a dropped alibi. She scolded Amanda for saying she was tired and the only thing she was interested in when she started questioning her immediately was who had been to the cottage and what names Amanda could give her. This is when Amanda mentions Guede but not by name or how to contact him along with the names of other people.

I agree it's difficult to reconstruct. My only problem with RSs 5hours comment is that it's not true that AK was waiting 5 hours. He has to know this because he sat through all the testimony and he's Italian. It sounds more reasonable though when describing AKs "stretching" because she'd been waiting 5hours. It also makes it seems like his questioning was much longer than it was before "he gave her up". It's an exaggeration, which IMO is a lie meant to mislead the audience who may not know better or care to find the truth.

Before its implied, I don't care about her cartwheels I don't think that makes her guilty.

 

[Bill C]

I am attaching an article that gave me a lot to think about. It's author is a man named Jim Snowden. I don't know much about him other than the fact that he has authored a couple of books, writes a blog (from which this article is excerpted) and has come to the conclusion that AK and RS are probably innocent. Therefore, I readily admit that I can't vouch for his credibility. Nevertheless, the article (it won't take you long to read) seems fairly well reasoned and brings up ideas about which I was only peripherally aware. I'd be interested in hearing your opinions about the piece.

[www.jimsnowden.com/2014/01/20/the-unsinkable-rubber-ducks-of-italy/[

 

[Amber29]

I am attaching an article that gave me a lot to think about. It's author is a man named Jim Snowden. I don't know much about him other than the fact that he has authored a couple of books, writes a blog (from which this article is excerpted) and has come to the conclusion that AK and RS are probably innocent. Therefore, I readily admit that I can't vouch for his credibility. Nevertheless, the article (it won't take you long to read) seems fairly well reasoned and brings up ideas about which I was only peripherally aware. I'd be interested in hearing your opinions about the piece.

[www.jimsnowden.com/2014/01/20/the-unsinkable-rubber-ducks-of-italy/[

I respect his opinion but he misrepresents the evidence. For instance he states that RGs footprints start from inside Meredith's room and head in 2 directions, towards the bathroom and towards the front door. He then says this indicates he went into the bathroom to wash up. He actually states that RG stepped in blood twice. This is untrue, in fact it's the missing prints that lead to the bathroom that is a hold up for some. It's unclear to me how RG avoided getting any blood on the tile in the bathroom.

He also talks about cuts on RGs hands that indicate he was cut during the knife attack. I have long questioned why no blood/DNA of RG was found in the bathroom or outside Meredith's room if he left with cuts on his hands and washed up in the bathroom.

He also says the bra clasp evidence has been debunked. This is not true either, experts have testified about it but its up to the jury to decide how much weight they give it. It has not been thrown out.

 

[Bill C]

I respect his opinion but he misrepresents the evidence. For instance he states that RGs footprints start from inside Meredith's room and head in 2 directions, towards the bathroom and towards the front door. He then says this indicates he went into the bathroom to wash up. He actually states that RG stepped in blood twice. This is untrue, in fact it's the missing prints that lead to the bathroom that is a hold up for some. It's unclear to me how RG avoided getting any blood on the tile in the bathroom.

He also talks about cuts on RGs hands that indicate he was cut during the knife attack. I have long questioned why no blood/DNA of RG was found in the bathroom or outside Meredith's room if he left with cuts on his hands and washed up in the bathroom.

He also says the bra clasp evidence has been debunked. This is not true either, experts have testified about it but its up to the jury to decide how much weight they give it. It has not been thrown out.

Amber,
I was not particularly talking about his take on the evidence which is up for debate but I found a couple of things interesting:
1) US judges have to read a 6oo something tutorial on forensic DNA before they hear cases and Italian judges have no such requirement. He posits that therefore the Italian juditiary probably tend to rely on testimony from experts they may be familiar with (inside prosecution experts) more tthan experts from outside with whom they may not be familiar (usually defense experts) since they don't have a basis on which to judge themselves.
2) People believing they can "read" other people is not particularly accurate and that can lead to bias by police, prosecutors, judges and yes even members of chat groups.
3) People's unwillingness to admit errors and the consequences thereof.

 

[SMK]

I am attaching an article that gave me a lot to think about. It's author is a man named Jim Snowden. I don't know much about him other than the fact that he has authored a couple of books, writes a blog (from which this article is excerpted) and has come to the conclusion that AK and RS are probably innocent. Therefore, I readily admit that I can't vouch for his credibility. Nevertheless, the article (it won't take you long to read) seems fairly well reasoned and brings up ideas about which I was only peripherally aware. I'd be interested in hearing your opinions about the piece.

[www.jimsnowden.com/2014/01/20/the-unsinkable-rubber-ducks-of-italy/[

Very interesting article. I have often worried that I may be "on the wrong side of history" with this case, because I began as a pro-innocence person for several years, even advocating for that side, and then became a doubter when the Court of Cassation annulled the Hellmann ruling.

I would agree (unlike some others) that the forensic evidence is not strong. (Because it would seem that for every piece of forensic evidence which is supposed to be solid, there are tests which diminish it, and experts dismissing it and believed by many intelligent people in the media and elsewhere, such as this author's site). I must defer to experts as I don't have a background in science or forensics, so this whole are is weak and hazy for me.

Amber does make a couple of astute points, though....

There continue to be strong suspicions that haunt me about the two defendants - But I am the first to admit that this case is a circumstantial one, based on inference, and that there is required some sort of psychological faith in a narrative - for which there are indeed indicators - but which I suppose is not really the format of legal decisions. I really don't know. When I examine certain elements, I still intuitively lean toward some involvement on the part of the defendants.

The author closes by saying:

Six years on, it&#8217;s not likely we can expect much change from them. As my Dad would say, they have too much time in. The prosecutors, the original trial judge, and the judges of the Italian Supreme court are like Fred Leuchter: they&#8217;re past the point where they can conceive of having been wrong. Knox&#8217;s best hope now is that the judges in the current trial are, like Judge Hellmann, able to see the evidence anew, recognize their predecessors&#8217; mistakes, and find the courage to try to correct them.

I think that if the court acquits, I will accept that perhaps I was wrong. If the court chooses to uphold the convictions, I will be open to the pro-guilt side perhaps more strongly. The court has to be trusted or all is lost.

 

[quesarita]

Since he uses past tense, such as a woman that "wanted" fame, we have to look to women that Sollecito has known in his past life and who wanted fame. Up until the murder, Sollecito had no fame, so the woman with the fame by association objective (text complaint from Sollecito) came after the murder. Since Sollecito became part of the Kercher murder, Knox is associated with him. Is she a mentally unstable fame seeker?

She and her family drew attention to themselves with clothing (oversized Beattles t-shirt, hotpants) and courtroom attitude. Posing at the scene of the crime was perceived in poor taste. Knox's family gained fame while she lost hair in prison. The US media (PR Firm) provided a skewed interpretation of the trial and Knox gained fame, celebrity and notoriety as a wrongfullyconvicted.com InjusticeinPerugia inspiration. That was somewhat corrected with the English translation of the Massei Report, but the fame seeking was very apparent .. murdertainment that Nancy Grace won't touch.

Did Knox seek fame through her association with the murder of Meredith Kercher? Yes. She still does. Meredith was murdered in 2007, and the family has been clear, throughout, that they do not want any association with the accuseds. Knox, in 2013, is still making demands and requests that Meredith's family associate with her, the accused. She refuses to respect the most basic of requests for privacy. Yes, if six years after the murder the suspect is making a spectacle of herself as she continues to attempt to contact the victim's family and visit the victim's grave, due to a deranged mind or fame as the guiding factor; like with Knox, fame can be the only option. If Knox, the accused, is continuing to attempt to contact the victim's family six years after the murder, something is wrong ... and it's not because the accused is innocent. Each time she surfaces with this request, she gets media attention and fame.

Knox's "fame" was the inevitable result of the media storm whipped up by the sensational possibilities of a photogenic American student accused of a violent sex crime in Italy; and it was overwhelmingly negative from the beginning.
How could she and her family have avoided the photographers who followed them everywhere, or prevented the mountains of hearsay from being written about them?