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

[quesarita]

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/[

From the article:"Meredith Kercher’s death involved several events which had to combine to result in her murder in her bedroom. So it is sensible to start with the place where her body was found and work outward, following the strongest evidence, and see how it converges."

I can find no evidence that testing for bloody foot prints or clean up of same was done in Meredith's bedroom. If someone can correct me on this, please do. I can understand if at the beginning they believed the prints in the bedroom matched Sollecito's shoes; but after those had been matched to Guede's and the police went back to use the super sensitive luminol in the hallway, did they really not do the same in Meredith's bedroom?

 

[Harmony 2]

From the article:"Meredith Kercher’s death involved several events which had to combine to result in her murder in her bedroom. So it is sensible to start with the place where her body was found and work outward, following the strongest evidence, and see how it converges."

I can find no evidence that testing for bloody foot prints or clean up of same was done in Meredith's bedroom. If someone can correct me on this, please do. I can understand if at the beginning they believed the prints in the bedroom matched Sollecito's shoes; but after those had been matched to Guede's and the police went back to use the super sensitive luminol in the hallway, did they really not do the same in Meredith's bedroom?

You are correct, luminol was not used in Meredith's room.

Page 194

She then explained the results obtained from the Luminol tests, stating that "this test was performed during the second search, at the end of all the other activities, on the floor of the following areas: Filomena Romanelli's room, Amanda Knox's room, the corridor, the living room-kitchen corner and the larger bathroom" (p. 83 of the transcripts). She pointed out that on the basis of this test, she could not say with certainty that blood was present, since other substances as well may cause Luminol to glow.

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/TheMasseiReport.pdf

 

[Bill C]

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’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’re past the point where they can conceive of having been wrong. Knox’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’ 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.

SMK,
Please take the following as a compliment and not a criticism! You have too little faith in yourself. You probably are as familiar (if not more familiar) with this case than are at least 8 of the current jurors and maybe even the judges. Why let the ISC's decision or even the current jury decision sway you so? There was probably nothing in the ISC's decision with which you were unfamiliar, so why let their OPINION sway you? Earlier, you said that you're glad that you're not on the jury but if you were, you would probably vote NOT GUILTY because you still have doubts. Why not stick to your guns? I tend to have an inherant distrust of authority and question it extensively (I probably would have made a horrible soldier or priest, don't you think). From your posts, I suspect you don't harber such distrust. That's a shame since IMO only by questioning authority can authority be held accountable.

 

[aa9511]

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.

It's not like she was in some Third-world country. Good grief. She was in Italy! Most educated Italians would know some English - even in Third World countries, the educated know English. It is known by every Foreign country that for the educated to get good jobs, they have to know some sort of English, at least that is what I have always been told by Foreigners and that is what I have witnessed myself in the places I have been to. In fact, many speak what sounds like "more proper" English because they don't incorporate "slang" and short-cuts like the rest of us do.

My point is that they would have understood some short phrases, such as "I want a lawyer." Or, "I want to wait for my Mom to get here." Or, "I want to call my Aunt first." Or, "I don't want to say anything until I have......(insert someone - lawyer, mom, Aunt, etc..).

Even in the U.S., where there is no "language problem," many, many suspects talk even though they don't have to.

IMO, the guilty ones usually do it b/c they feel like the police will think they're more innocent if they "cooperate" willingly and answer questions willingly and like they have nothing to hide. IMO, this is why Amanda talked in the first place.

I feel like a guilty Amanda would have done the same exact thing had the crime occured in the U.S.. She would have willingly come to the police station and answered any questions they had. Surely you can see how a guilty person would have hesitation to tell the police, "no I will not answer any of your questions, bye-bye, and go away"?

She would have done the same exact thing here in the U.S., IMO.

 

[quesarita]

You are correct, luminol was not used in Meredith's room.



http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/TheMasseiReport.pdf

As I understand this, there is no evidence of cleaning or a clean up in Meredith's bedroom; just a lack of the kinds of evidence left by Rudy.

 

[SMK]

It's not like she was in some Third-world country. Good grief. She was in Italy! Most educated Italians would know some English - even in Third World countries, the educated know English. It is known by every Foreign country that for the educated to get good jobs, they have to know some sort of English, at least that is what I have always been told by Foreigners and that is what I have witnessed myself in the places I have been to. In fact, many speak what sounds like "more proper" English because they don't incorporate "slang" and short-cuts like the rest of us do.

My point is that they would have understood some short phrases, such as "I want a lawyer." Or, "I want to wait for my Mom to get here." Or, "I want to call my Aunt first." Or, "I don't want to say anything until I have......(insert someone - lawyer, mom, Aunt, etc..).

Even in the U.S., where there is no "language problem," many, many suspects talk even though they don't have to.

IMO, the guilty ones usually do it b/c they feel like the police will think they're more innocent if they "cooperate" willingly and answer questions willingly and like they have nothing to hide. IMO, this is why Amanda talked in the first place.

I feel like a guilty Amanda would have done the same exact thing had the crime occured in the U.S.. She would have willingly come to the police station and answered any questions they had. Surely you can see how a guilty person would have hesitation to tell the police, "no I will not answer any of your questions, bye-bye, and go away"?

She would have done the same exact thing here in the U.S., IMO.

That is an interesting point. She was made to look even worse by her own admission that she couldn't really recall where she was or what she was doing. She ought to have been able to say, "I know where I was and your hard evidence has to be wrong.". Of course the police then used this to drive a wedge in, telling her she had amnesia.

 

[aa9511]

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.

Yes, it does seem like Amanda enjoys all of the attention. JMO.

However, I still have questions regarding who exactly Raffaele meant. Amanda's notoriety (finally got the spelling right) was independent of Raffaele's in the sense of, she didn't need to piggy-back off of Raffaele's notoriety, she had her own. And more. So if he was talking about Amanda, IMO, he was suggesting that he didn't like the notoriety or the attention, but Amanda did. She liked all the attention. However, she is still trying to get attention, so that doesn't explain the past tense "did." Unless he is saying, she liked it a lot in the beginning, but not anymore.

If he was talking about some previous relationship or ex-gf, that would make a little more sense, because he would be saying, yeah, this one crazy girl loved all the attention of being associated with me, but she has mental issues. In this context, it would not make sense for it to be Amanda, because she had her own notoriety independent of his.

 

[aa9511]

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:.

Yes, omg, I always say I'm going to do that and then forget! Sometimes if it's a long one, I'll copy it at the end before I "submit" in case it doesn't go through, but I always forget to do it while I'm typing!

 

[quesarita]

Bill C, do you have the forensic expertise to know if someone stepping on a bloody footprint and/or shoe print with damp or wet feet could then leave faint traces detectable by Luminol on a tile floor?

 

[SMK]

SMK,
Please take the following as a compliment and not a criticism! You have too little faith in yourself. You probably are as familiar (if not more familiar) with this case than are at least 8 of the current jurors and maybe even the judges. Why let the ISC's decision or even the current jury decision sway you so? There was probably nothing in the ISC's decision with which you were unfamiliar, so why let their OPINION sway you? Earlier, you said that you're glad that you're not on the jury but if you were, you would probably vote NOT GUILTY because you still have doubts. Why not stick to your guns? I tend to have an inherant distrust of authority and question it extensively (I probably would have made a horrible soldier or priest, don't you think). From your posts, I suspect you don't harber such distrust. That's a shame since IMO only by questioning authority can authority be held accountable.

Thanks for the compliment - However, I wonder if I am not just weak-minded and wavering when it comes to this case (I am usually not so about other things) because I began with one stance, and then switched to another. Intuition and nuance and psychology have their strongest pull on me at this point, so they are more difficult to defend than direct evidence (although can lead one to the truth in their own manner.)

Yes, I do believe all authority must be questioned and must be held accountable.

I suppose I am confused enough about certain aspects of this case, at this juncture, to want someone to decide and I would assume professional jurors ought to be neutral and objective enough.

 

[SMK]

Yes, omg, I always say I'm going to do that and then forget! Sometimes if it's a long one, I'll copy it at the end before I "submit" in case it doesn't go through, but I always forget to do it while I'm typing!

I have taken to doing this, too - because you can write a really long post, and then this site freezes :maddening: --- I know just what you are going through, and yes, always copy - it's no fun to write 4 paragraphs, lose it, and have to begin again :furious: ETA: Why so many problems with this site freezing? Happens 4-5 x pd with me, and not on any other sites.....

 

[quesarita]

Yes, it does seem like Amanda enjoys all of the attention. JMO.

However, I still have questions regarding who exactly Raffaele meant. Amanda's notoriety (finally got the spelling right) was independent of Raffaele's in the sense of, she didn't need to piggy-back off of Raffaele's notoriety, she had her own. And more. So if he was talking about Amanda, IMO, he was suggesting that he didn't like the notoriety or the attention, but Amanda did. She liked all the attention. However, she is still trying to get attention, so that doesn't explain the past tense "did." Unless he is saying, she liked it a lot in the beginning, but not anymore.

If he was talking about some previous relationship or ex-gf, that would make a little more sense, because he would be saying, yeah, this one crazy girl loved all the attention of being associated with me, but she has mental issues. In this context, it would not make sense for it to be Amanda, because she had her own notoriety independent of his.

My reading of the texts was that he wasn't talking about a girlfriend, but a girl who CONTACTED him because she wanted to share his fame; and he was complaining that no NORMAL girl would be interested in him because of his fame. Too bad he didn't see the same in Kelsey Kay.

 

[aa9511]

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.

Hey Snoods, omg I'm sorry if it came across like I didn't think you knew what was going on. It's just that IIRC you asked why we think Amanda and RS are involved, and IMO we discuss that in every thread, b/c that is what this whole case is about. Amanda and RS and their involvement or not is what the whole case is about.

My point with the staging was if one were to believe there was some staging done in this case, then it would make sense why the perps would want to make it look like a burglar came in and then raped and murdered a woman. As you see, that is not a hard thing to believe. I don't think it takes some rocket scientist to come up with that idea. It had to be a burglar b/c it had to be someone that broke into the house, otherwise how would they get into the house? If they didn't break in, that would mean it would be either someone Meredith let in, or someone one of the other housemates let in.

It had to be that this burglar murdered Meredith, because Meredith was murdered. IMO, they also made it look like the burglar raped Meredith, b/c it is easier to believe a brutal murder of a young woman contained to her bedroom, when we think about it in terms of rape and the violence associated with that. Otherwise, it would be that a burglar came into the house, went to Meredith's room, and stabbed her to death. The logical question in that scenario would be, why didn't the burglar just break a window and run away (and that's only if the front door was even locked!). If Meredith was in her bedroom, as many in the innocent scenario believe, she would not have even noticed this burglar was in the house. It makes much much more sense, that this burglar had an urgent need to rape Meredith, that's why he went into her bedroom, raped her, and then murdered her.

A rock thrown to break a window is not that hard to figure out, IMO. Of course, a burglar has to get into the house somehow without a key.

 

[aa9511]

My reading of the texts was that he wasn't talking about a girlfriend, but a girl who CONTACTED him because she wanted to share his fame; and he was complaining that no NORMAL girl would be interested in him because of his fame. Too bad he didn't see the same in Kelsey Kay.

Yes, that makes sense.

 

[aa9511]

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.

bbm

Why are the times all over the place? I think it's because two people Amanda and RS are constantly lying about the time, changing it changing it to suit their needs and fit into the "pressure interrogation" scenario.

 

[aa9511]

That is an interesting point. She was made to look even worse by her own admission that she couldn't really recall where she was or what she was doing. She ought to have been able to say, "I know where I was and your hard evidence has to be wrong.". Of course the police then used this to drive a wedge in, telling her she had amnesia.

Of course, because they knew she was lying! Any guilty person will of course say "I Don't Remember." It should be enscribed on a plaque and hung in every interrogation room. Of course, the "details", you know very minute minute, hard to remember details like, "what did you do that night?" are going to be verrrrryyyy hard to remember for someone who actually killed someone on the night in question. They weren't asking her, "tell me what you did on January 15, 1986."

It is very convenenient for both Amanda and RS to claim they were in some "haze" to where they couldn't remember basic things they did. Yeah, some haze, that should also be on the plaque: "I was in a blurry haze."

Let's see what plaques there should be:

"I don't remember."
"My memories are fuzzy."
"It's all a blur."
"I was in a fog."
"I was in a haze."
"Everything just blends together. I don't remember."
"I just can't remember."
"Maybe I was dreaming?"
"Maybe I was sleep-walking?"

 

[otto]

Of course, because they knew she was lying! Any guilty person will of course say "I Don't Remember." It should be enscribed on a plaque and hung in every interrogation room. Of course, the "details", you know very minute minute, hard to remember details like, "what did you do that night?" are going to be verrrrryyyy hard to remember for someone who actually killed someone on the night in question. They weren't asking her, "tell me what you did on January 15, 1986."

It is very convenenient for both Amanda and RS to claim they were in some "haze" to where they couldn't remember basic things they did. Yeah, some haze, that should also be on the plaque: "I was in a blurry haze."

Let's see what plaques there should be:

"I don't remember."
"My memories are fuzzy."
"It's all a blur."
"I was in a fog."
"I was in a haze."
"Everything just blends together. I don't remember."
"I just can't remember."
"Maybe I was dreaming?"
"Maybe I was sleep-walking?"

She also talks about "imaginings" and "flashback"

 

[Harmony 2]

Thanks for the compliment - However, I wonder if I am not just weak-minded and wavering when it comes to this case (I am usually not so about other things) because I began with one stance, and then switched to another. Intuition and nuance and psychology have their strongest pull on me at this point, so they are more difficult to defend than direct evidence (although can lead one to the truth in their own manner.)

Yes, I do believe all authority must be questioned and must be held accountable.

I suppose I am confused enough about certain aspects of this case, at this juncture, to want someone to decide and I would assume professional jurors ought to be neutral and objective enough.

SMK if your strong intuition pulls you toward believing they were involved and my strong intuition pulls me toward believing they were not involved does that mean our intuitions get cancelled out.

I am just kidding...

 

[SMK]

SMK if your strong intuition pulls you toward believing they were involved and my strong intuition pulls me toward believing they were not involved does that mean our intuitions get cancelled out.

I am just kidding...

:giggle: :laugh:

 

[SMK]

Of course, because they knew she was lying! Any guilty person will of course say "I Don't Remember." It should be enscribed on a plaque and hung in every interrogation room. Of course, the "details", you know very minute minute, hard to remember details like, "what did you do that night?" are going to be verrrrryyyy hard to remember for someone who actually killed someone on the night in question. They weren't asking her, "tell me what you did on January 15, 1986."

It is very convenenient for both Amanda and RS to claim they were in some "haze" to where they couldn't remember basic things they did. Yeah, some haze, that should also be on the plaque: "I was in a blurry haze."

Let's see what plaques there should be:

"I don't remember."
"My memories are fuzzy."
"It's all a blur."
"I was in a fog."
"I was in a haze."
"Everything just blends together. I don't remember."
"I just can't remember."
"Maybe I was dreaming?"
"Maybe I was sleep-walking?"

Yes, the hazy memory thing does in fact sometimes seem like so much strategic manouvering.

About the other point you made in your prior post, too (about talking to the police in an attempt to control the investigation):

I do recall a real-life cold case where a woman and her boyfriend had killed her husband, and went on to lead their separate lives for over 20 years. Then one day the cold case unit came knocking, and the detective told the journalists that the woman could have easily slammed the door in his face, said , "That was decades ago and I've nothing to say; speak to my attorney." He was in fact expecting her to do that, and for the case to remain forever cold. .... But because she thought she could manipulate and put an end to the whole thing, she talked to them for hours, and wound up getting arrested. So yes, that is an example of the point you made.