Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#3

[otto]

The judge asked a critical question of the DNA experts: he asked if it was necessary to have a double test of DNA in order for it to be valid. The analysis of Meredith's DNA on the knife was a single test because, at the time, testing methods did not allow for a second sample to be preserved and the original sample was consumed during the first test.

This may be sufficient for that DNA sample (Meredith's DNA from the knife blade) to be excluded.

 

[OldSteve]

I guess it's time to stop lurking and make a few points, in no particular order.

1. I do not believe AK or RS killed MK. And I mean that literally. Neither one used a knife on her or held her while someone else did.
2. I do believe both AK and RS know more than they are telling, and they will likely take it to the grave. What they know makes for great speculation and discussion, but unfortunately that's all it is.
3. All of the discussion around the behaviour of AK and RS indicating guilt is ridiculous. I have been working in IT (a field known for odd characters) for almost 30 years, and I have seen my share of strange. Simply put, we are all different; we all handle things differently; we all speak differently; we all react differently. What a boring world we would live in if that were not the case. Every time I hear someone say they acted strangely, they are really saying that's not how they would have acted. First, so what? Second, let's circle back to this question next time you're accused of murder.
4. Forensic evidence. This is the fun one. I am all for forensic evidence, but the pendulum has swung too far. If there is sufficient forensic evidence, and it tells a story, and that story is backed up by other evidence, great. A speck of DNA, that was too small to be tested during the initial trial, that does not line up with other DNA to tell a story, let alone back up a story presented by other evidence, is insufficient.

The discussion and debate on this forum has been great. And in my mind, this is the very definition of reasonable doubt. Is it possible AK and RS, with RG killed MK? Yes, it's possible. But from everything I have read, it seems far more likely that they didn't do it. And besides, let's say for a minute they did, and they are set free (for good). Does anybody really believe they are going to do this again. Do they pose a threat to us? Seems to me it would be a greater injustice to lock them up.

There you have it. I have a thick skin, so fire away.

Jim


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great to get your point of view!
Regarding the first BBM - considering it took some 10 minutes to take Meredith's life - the question of why she was unable to get out of her room bothers me. It appears she was somehow trapped or others were involved preventing her exit. Without going into all the details, some of the wounds didn't make sense - it appears her wrists were held, yet if they were, how could one person do both, hold them while stabbing...

Also, considering all the stabbing, I would figure RG would have had more cuts on him, since blood makes a knife slippery...

But why were there no cuts, marks on AK/RS is a mystery for me... were the checked closely enough?

Regarding your #4 - totally agree!

So I consider myself neither pro-guilt or pro-innocent, guess I'm pro-confused!

ETA - thought the changes of story, false accusations, etc... do tilt towards some sort of involvement.

 

[otto]

Well it appears today's proceeding was a waste of time. Next hearing is on the 25th?? It is costly to fly back and forth plus hotel expenses etc Was her lawyer there? If so that's good enough in my opinion.

How is it a waste of time to hear the results of the analysis of the DNA sample on the handle of the knife? How is it a waste of time to speak directly to the judge and jury regarding her participation in a murder?

 

[SMK]

The judge asked a critical question of the DNA experts: he asked if it was necessary to have a double test of DNA in order for it to be valid. The analysis of Meredith's DNA on the knife was a single test because, at the time, testing methods did not allow for a second sample to be preserved and the original sample was consumed during the first test.

This may be sufficient for that DNA sample (Meredith's DNA from the knife blade) to be excluded.

So in your opinion, where do things stand now, after today?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Knox has said that she "can't afford" to attend her own trial, but I think that it was the wrong decision. Sollecito has not been arrested for attending the trial, and I doubt that Knox would be arrested for doing the same thing. He has been free to travel, and there's no reason why the same wouldn't be true for her. It seems that he can leave the country tomorrow again, if he chooses.

:seeya: Good point about Raf NOT being arrested when he showed up in Florence ...

:waitasec: So ya see, Knox could have showed up in Florence ... and Knox could afford it because she herself stated that she got megabucks for that book deal ...

Nah ... she is petrified to show up because she knows in the end, she will be found GUILTY !

:twocents:

 

[otto]

So in your opinion, where do things stand now, after today?

I would say that the balance tilted towards not guilty. Sollecito's appearance in court was very important, as it gives a face and voice to one of the accused. Additionally, although the DNA experts validated the earlier DNA tests, they pointed out the weakness in a single, rather than double, test.

 

[~n/t~]

How is it a waste of time to hear the results of the analysis of the DNA sample on the handle of the knife? How is it a waste of time to speak directly to the judge and jury regarding her participation in a murder?

I'm going to speculate the court will understand her non presence because of the travelling situation and the expenses. If her attorney was present, that is good enough in my opinion. Sollecito is Italian. His disposition wouldn't be a big deal.

 

[Sonata]

:seeya: Good point about Raf NOT being arrested when he showed up in Florence ...

:waitasec: So ya see, Knox could have showed up in Florence ... and Knox could afford it because she herself stated that she got megabucks for that book deal ...

Nah ... she is petrified to show up because she knows in the end, she will be found GUILTY !

:twocents:

Realistically, either way she should be scared to come back into the country, and she should be scared of a guilty verdict. It doesn't really matter on that note if she is guilty or not.

If she is guilty, she will be scared of them uncovering the truth and rearresting her. If she is innocent, she will scared of them giving a guilty verdict since she has already been through that before.

I think it's perfectly understandable from either perspective why she would be scared and not want to come back.

 

[otto]

I'm going to speculate the court will understand her non presence because of the travelling situation and the expenses. If her attorney was present, that is good enough in my opinion. Sollecito is Italian. His disposition wouldn't be a big deal.

She received $3.2 million for the book that was published. It is impossible for anyone to believe that she could not afford to go to Italy to give a statement on her own behalf regarding murder charges. To claim that she cannot afford it is to once again announce to the world that she is a liar.

 

[otto]

Realistically, either way she should be scared to come back into the country, and she should be scared of a guilty verdict. It doesn't really matter on that note if she is guilty or not.

If she is guilty, she will be scared of them uncovering the truth and rearresting her. If she is innocent, she will scared of them giving a guilty verdict since she has already been through that before.

I think it's perfectly understandable from either perspective why she would be scared and not want to come back.

She claimed that she could not afford the air fare, so she would not give a statement on her own behalf. Sollecito could be on a plane to anywhere in the world at this moment, and the same would have been possible for Knox had she gone to Florence to give a statement.

"Amanda Knox has defended her decision not to attend the retrial over the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, saying she cannot afford to travel to Italy."

http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/23/amand...tend-meredith-kercher-murder-retrial-4090654/

 

[OldSteve]

Realistically, either way she should be scared to come back into the country, and she should be scared of a guilty verdict. It doesn't really matter on that note if she is guilty or not.

If she is guilty, she will be scared of them uncovering the truth and rearresting her. If she is innocent, she will scared of them giving a guilty verdict since she has already been through that before.

I think it's perfectly understandable from either perspective why she would be scared and not want to come back.

Agree, and more so since our (US) system of justice does not allow appealing by the prosecution.

 

[SMK]

I would say that the balance tilted towards not guilty. Sollecito's appearance in court was very important, as it gives a face and voice to one of the accused. Additionally, although the DNA experts validated the earlier DNA tests, they pointed out the weakness in a single, rather than double, test.

I am getting this feeling as well, and perhaps there is a reason it is leaning this way.....in any case thanks as always for your excellent input--Jan 10 will put the seal on all.....

 

[Sonata]

She claimed that she could not afford the air fare, so she would not give a statement on her own behalf. Sollecito could be on a plane to anywhere in the world at this moment, and the same would have been possible for Knox had she gone to Florence to give a statement.

I remember reading somewhere (not sure where) that she had used the money largely to pay back her parents.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Realistically, either way she should be scared to come back into the country, and she should be scared of a guilty verdict. It doesn't really matter on that note if she is guilty or not.

If she is guilty, she will be scared of them uncovering the truth and rearresting her. If she is innocent, she will scared of them giving a guilty verdict since she has already been through that before.

I think it's perfectly understandable from either perspective why she would be scared and not want to come back.

:waitasec: So ... IF she is "innocent" than what does she have to lose by returning ?

It's real simple, IMO : She is NOT "innocent" and she knows it !

:moo:

 

[otto]

I am getting this feeling as well, and perhaps there is a reason it is leaning this way.....in any case thanks as always for your excellent input--Jan 10 will put the seal on all.....

There is still Sollcito's DNA on the clasp to deal with, but the six week delay in collection may be sufficient to put some doubt on that evidence. I guess it really depends on how much emphasis the court will place on the DNA, versus non-DNA, circumstantial evidence.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I'm going to speculate the court will understand her non presence because of the travelling situation and the expenses. If her attorney was present, that is good enough in my opinion. Sollecito is Italian. His disposition wouldn't be a big deal.

:seeya:

BBM: I have to respectfully disagree with this:

- The Court is very well aware that this is a "high profile case" ...

- The Court is very well aware that the Knox-Mellases hired a PR Firm to "spin" the "Amanda is innocent" story in the U.S.

- The Court is very familiar with Knox's book, and that she received a huge payment [in her own words] for this book ...

- The Court is very familiar with Knox's book, which contradicts the evidence and which also contradicts points contained in Sollecito's book ...

The Court in Florence knows what is really going on, and it is an "insult to their intelligence" to use the argument that she cannot afford to travel, yada yada yada ...

:twocents:

 

[whoanellie]

:waitasec: So ... IF she is "innocent" than what does she have to lose by returning ?

It's real simple, IMO : She is NOT "innocent" and she knows it !

:moo:

To answer your question with some questions: how many days has she already spent in prison? Why would she risk spending more time in prison?

 

[~n/t~]

To answer your question with some questions: how many days has she already spent in prison? Why would she risk spending more time in prison?

4 years

 

[dog.gone.cute]

To answer your question with some questions: how many days has she already spent in prison? Why would she risk spending more time in prison?

Knox spent approximately 4 years in :jail: : November 2007 through October 2011.

Also, Knox committed Calunnia :

Calunnia is a criminal offence under Article 368 of the Italian Penal Code (Codice Penale).

It is the crime committed when someone falsely directs a judicial authority to blame someone for a crime when he or she knows that person is innocent.

This can be by making a false accusation to a judicial authority or by fabricating evidence. The penalty is imprisonment from two to six years. If the accused blames someone for a serious crime, such as murder, the penalty is increased to imprisonment for up to twenty years.[2][3]

This crime does not have an exact equivalent in common-law jurisdictions, but it is somewhat akin to "perverting the course of justice". It is considered more serious than simple defamation.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Glossary_of_Terms#calunnia


JMO, but Knox should have spent the maximum in :jail: for this charge ... Knox RUINED Mr. Lumumba's life !

 

[SMK]

There is still Sollcito's DNA on the clasp to deal with, but the six week delay in collection may be sufficient to put some doubt on that evidence. I guess it really depends on how much emphasis the court will place on the DNA, versus non-DNA, circumstantial evidence.

Yes, true. And some of it no doubt will be based on the intuitive sense of the jurors, whether they get the sense RS and AK are culpable or not. I guess we'll simply have to wait until Jan 10, and trust that providence will do what is right, if you believe in such a thing (I do mainly).