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

[~n/t~]

: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:

They shouldn't even consider any of that. The focus should be on the evidence. Yah it was nice Sollecito showed up , I suppose, but do you think his presence shifted their decision one way or the other? I doubt it.

BTW I'm pro confused just like OldSteve. I thought they were guilty in the first trial but now I keep shifting back and forth:fence:

 

[~n/t~]

Seems like they need a bit more time for the closing arguments than I had expected.

Nov 25 - closing arguments prosecution
Nov 26 - closing arguments civil
Dec 16 - closing arguments Sollectio
Dec 17 - closing arguments Knox
Jan 9 - rebuttals
Jan 10 - deliberation and verdict

Will Sollecito appear at all of these?

 

[SMK]

Will Sollecito appear at all of these?

That's a good question, but given his appearance today and his plea to the jurors, it probably won't be necessary.

 

[~n/t~]

Amanda Knox’s third Italian murder trial hears testimony that alleged murder weapon had Knox’s DNA on it — but not the victim’s

FLORENCE, Italy — A court-appointed expert testifying in U.S. student Amanda Knox’s third murder trial in Italy said Wednesday that a new trace of DNA found on the handle of the knife alleged to have been the murder weapon belongs to Knox and not the victim.

That testimony bolsters the defence, which claims the kitchen knife was not the weapon used in the bloody 2007 slaying of Knox’s British roommate, 21-year-old Meredith Kercher.


http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/1...apon-had-knoxs-dna-on-it-but-not-the-victims/

 

[Cappuccino]

I got the impression today went well for the defense. Its early days yet though.

 

[SMK]

I got the impression today went well for the defense. Its early days yet though.

I think that is an accurate impression. But yes, it is quite a long way to Jan 10.

 

[SMK]

@Otto: Just some reflections I thought I'd set down:

I think it's important to remember that the main thing is that the judgment is true.

As I have stated, I don't care which side wins, so long as they have the truth.
Weakened DNA evidence should not mean an acquittal if they are guilty; a strong prosecution argument should not convict if they are innocent.

Although today looked really strong for the defense, an acquittal is far from guarenteed.
The jurors may not be so convinced as regards the accidents of contamination, etc.

They may have been impressed by Raffaele on a superficial level only.

A very intelligent pro-innocence poster on another site has pointed out how much the judges would still have to be convinced of , in order to acquit. If the defense cannot convince them, they will likely feel forced to uphold convictions.

Here is the link to his list; tell me what you think (I know we are not allowed to copy/paste from other sites; that link will lead you to his excellent itemized list).


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=9606778#post9606778

 

[dgfred]

Hey otto. What part of the statement to the court do you think was 'heartfelt'?
Why didn't he read from his book about what he thought of the investigation and the courts?

Hey SMK. What part do you think went well for the defense. I didn't see it that way at all.

 

[jgsmith]

One thing we can all agree on, is that there are a lot of people convinced AK and RS are guilty, and there are a lot convinced they are innocent. Regardless of the outcome, a lot of people are going to be wrong. That got me to thinking about the implications of being wrong. Since there are only 4 possible outcomes, lets take a look at them all:

1. AK and RS are in fact innocent, and the appeals court throws out the conviction. Justice has been served.

2. AK and RS are in fact guilty, and the appeals court upholds the conviction. Justice has been served.

3. AK and RS are in fact innocent, but the appeals court upholds the conviction. Just has not been served, and 2 young people loose 20+ years of their lives.

4. AK and RS are in fact guilty, but the appeals court throws out the conviction. Justice has not been served, and 2 murderers are free.

Since we are unlikely to ever know if they are in fact innocent or guilty, I wonder about the 2 "bad" options.

First, lets say they are in fact guilty, but set free. We have seen AK and RS over the past couple of years as free people, so what have they done? They've reunited with families and friends, gone back to school and written books. Have we seen any behavior to indicate this sort of thing might happen again? I don't know...

Now lets say they are in fact innocent. 2 young people loose 20+ years of their lives, and are probably never able to have families of their own.

Jim

 

[SMK]

Hey otto. What part of the statement to the court do you think was 'heartfelt'?
Why didn't he read from his book about what he thought of the investigation and the courts?

Hey SMK. What part do you think went well for the defense. I didn't see it that way at all.

Although you asked Otto and not me, I feel Sollecito appeared to deliver a heartfelt statement, but I also stated that this may have impressed the judges only superficially.

What appeared to go well for the defense was the weakening of the argument for the Kercher DNA (even Otto viewed it as such)---but for aught I know, maybe this was an illusion. How do YOU think all went today?

 

[Cherry]

We should extradite her *advertiser censored* to Italy so that she has to serve her sentence. I have always felt she killed her and was jealous of her and was a killer and now we have HER DNA on the KNIFE. That's it for me. We really should extradite her. Today.

 

[SMK]

One thing we can all agree on, is that there are a lot of people convinced AK and RS are guilty, and there are a lot convinced they are innocent. Regardless of the outcome, a lot of people are going to be wrong. That got me to thinking about the implications of being wrong. Since there are only 4 possible outcomes, lets take a look at them all:

1. AK and RS are in fact innocent, and the appeals court throws out the conviction. Justice has been served.

2. AK and RS are in fact guilty, and the appeals court upholds the conviction. Justice has been served.

3. AK and RS are in fact innocent, but the appeals court upholds the conviction. Just has not been served, and 2 young people loose 20+ years of their lives.

4. AK and RS are in fact guilty, but the appeals court throws out the conviction. Justice has not been served, and 2 murderers are free.

Since we are unlikely to ever know if they are in fact innocent or guilty, I wonder about the 2 "bad" options.

First, lets say they are in fact guilty, but set free. We have seen AK and RS over the past couple of years as free people, so what have they done? They've reunited with families and friends, gone back to school and written books. Have we seen any behavior to indicate this sort of thing might happen again? I don't know...

Now lets say they are in fact innocent. 2 young people loose 20+ years of their lives, and are probably never able to have families of their own.

Jim

Yes, one would hope that only #s 1 or 2 would occur, as 3 and 4 are so unjust. As to which is better, letting guilty go on to lead good lives, or innocents imprisoned with ruined lives, of course the former is better than the latter, in such a gamble. Really a very disturbing case all around.

 

[rachaellouise]

I think AK not turning up will definitely come back to bite her in the butt.

 

[Cappuccino]

We should extradite her *advertiser censored* to Italy so that she has to serve her sentence. I have always felt she killed her and was jealous of her and was a killer and now we have HER DNA on the KNIFE. That's it for me. We really should extradite her. Today.

There's nothing incriminating about Amanda's DNA being on the knife. That was good for the defense, not the prosecution.

What would have been bad for the defense would be Meredith's DNA on the knife, but according to today's testimony from the Carabinieri experts, the finding of Meredith's DNA on the knife was invalid and inadmissible.

 

[~n/t~]

I think AK not turning up will definitely come back to bite her in the butt.

Why? Her attorney was there on her behalf. I honestly don't see the big deal.

 

[whiterum]

~...Don't know if anyone has posted this yet, I didn't see it, but I apologize if I overlooked it--


~"Amanda Knox's ex-boyfriend and co-defendant in an Italian murder trial told the court today that Knox was his "first true love" and described their brief romance as a "fairy tale."

Raffaele Sollecito spoke emotionally at times during a 20 minutes statement before the appeals court in Florence, denying that he and Knox killed Meredith Kercher and calling the accusations against them "absurd.".....


...Sollecito, now 29, addressed the court today, defending himself and his romance with Knox, who had been vilified in Italy as a "she devil."

"Amanda Knox was the first true love of my life. Even if late in my life, this flower blossomed," he told the court.

"We had a carefree love," Sollecito said and that they "wanted to be isolated in this little fairy tale."

Instead, it turned into a nightmare of prison, litigation and suspicion. He told the court he can't find a job because people think of him as a killer.

"I never went to parties obsessively, never loved liquor, but I may have smoked a couple of joints, but that doesn't change who I am psychologically," he said.

He called Kercher's murder an "atrocious crime," but said the accusations against him and Knox were "absurd."

Pleading with the judge and jury, Sollecito said, "I appeal to you to give an Italian like you the possibility of having a life."


~Respectfully Snipped From:
http://gma.yahoo.com/amanda-knoxs-c...irst-true-143921020--abc-news-topstories.html

RS has probably practiced that speech in the mirror hundreds of times. In fact he appears to be an accomplished, a believable liar, since he also embellishes the lie with detail, such as this one .

He wrote: "The fact there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand. I apologised immediately and she said it was not a problem."

 

[~n/t~]

RS has probably practiced that speech in the mirror hundreds of times. In fact he appears to be an accomplished, a believable liar, since he also embellishes the lie with detail, such as this one .

He wrote: "The fact there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand. I apologised immediately and she said it was not a problem."

Do you have a link to that quote?

 

[whiterum]

Do you have a link to that quote?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-prison-diary-DNA-knife-pricked-cooking.html

 

[~n/t~]

Mail online with photos


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...h-Kercher-murder-retrial-ruthless-killer.html

 

[~n/t~]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-prison-diary-DNA-knife-pricked-cooking.html

Thanks.