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

[jgsmith]

Would it feel like a recant if you were Patrick Lumumba?

I get it that you feel like she was scared girl but her mom arrived the next day and she did nothing either to help Amanda clear the innocent mans names. We can blame the police for holding him all we want. Were they supposed to free a man that someone had implicated in a brutal murder? They released him when his alibi checked out and realized amanda was lying.

Anyways we shouldn't even be arguing over this she was convicted of her crime against Patrick and its final.

I think AK was looking out for herself and wasn't overly concerned that PL was in jail. No argument about the calunia charge. She was guilty, convicted, sentenced and served her time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Apparently you've never licked a knife. Or sweated in a hot kitchen. Or cut yourself while chopping. Most of us have done all these things.

Even the oily residue from one's fingers has DNA, some of it cell-free DNA. Suzanna Ryan has some nice resources on her site dealing with forensics.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I think AK was looking out for herself and wasn't overly concerned that PL was in jail. No argument about the calunia charge. She was guilty, convicted, sentenced and served her time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She completely withdrew her accusation in her second (not first) memoriale, the one from 7 November. The key passage was quoted back to her by PM Mignini during cross examination. She told her lawyers in a letter on or about 9 November that she spent the night at Sollecito's flat. She also said when Patrick was released, words to the effect, "Finally, something is going right."

 

[SMK]

Even the oily residue from one's fingers has DNA, some of it cell-free DNA. Suzanna Ryan has some nice resources on her site dealing with forensics.

Will the defense bring this up in court, and will the jury be educated on this?

 

[otto]

no evidence of RG in filomena's bdrm? how about evidence of filomena's bdrm on guede?

guede had fragment of glass wedged in his shoe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:M...t_of_glass_from_the_window_wedged_in_his_shoe

A fragment of glass from a broken window was found wedged in the tread of his shoe
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...jailed-Knox-and-Sollecito-to-stand-trial.html

Guede threw away his shoes in Germany, so we know that investigators did not find a piece of glass from a window embedded in his shoe. The article quoted, written by Nick Squires of Perugia on November 9, 2013, clearly has some problems with fact checking.

Furthermore, the source (Wikipedia talk) acknowledges that the shoes were thrown away in Germany, and then goes on to speculate about a piece of glass in Meredith's bedroom, not Filomina's bedroom. The source theory is that because there was a piece of glass in Meredith's bedroom, it was put there by Guede and therefore he must have had glass embedded in his shoe.

 

[Amber29]

She completely withdrew her accusation in her second (not first) memoriale, the one from 7 November. The key passage was quoted back to her by PM Mignini during cross examination. She told her lawyers in a letter on or about 9 November that she spent the night at Sollecito's flat. She also said when Patrick was released, words to the effect, "Finally, something is going right."

Can you please provide a link to this letter? I've quoted from the letter to police the next morning but I'd love to read the one you are referring to. In the one I've read, she babbles and still says she stands by her statements made the night before.

 

[otto]

Can you please provide a link to this letter? I've quoted from the letter to police the next morning but I'd love to read the one you are referring to. In the one I've read, she babbles and still says she stands by her statements made the night before.

That what I have read as well. She mentioned Patrick in the November 6 statement, specifically stating that she stands behind her statement about Patrick. I have not seen a letter written by Knox where she states: "I lied when I said that Patrick murdered Meredith."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I thought AK wrote a letter to the police the day after she implicated PL, recanting.

It is the second memoriale from 7 November, not the first memoriale from 6 November. People often confuse the two. The first memoriale sounds confused to me. Portions of it can be found in Follain's book, around p. 153 IIRC. The entire text is in Ms. Knox's book. She indicates that she did not return to her flat on 1 November. She also said that she stayed at Sollecito's flat in her letter to Ghirga, a letter written at most a few days later. Andrea Vogt has a link to the texts of her letters.

 

[otto]

It is the second memoriale from 7 November, not the first memoriale from 6 November. People often confuse the two. The first memoriale sounds confused to me. Portions of it can be found in Follain's book, around p. 153 IIRC. The entire text is in Ms. Knox's book. She indicates that she did not return to her flat on 1 November. She also said that she stayed at Sollecito's flat in her letter to Ghirga, a letter written at most a few days later. Andrea Vogt has a link to the texts of her letters.

Because Knox reported to police that Patrick murdered Meredith, in order to set things straight she had to report to police that she lied when she reported that Patrick murdered Meredith. She did not go to the police and set things straight.

Because she did not clear up her lies, she was convicted and imprisoned for falsely accusing an innocent man of murder. The case is closed.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Can you please provide a link to this letter? I've quoted from the letter to police the next morning but I'd love to read the one you are referring to. In the one I've read, she babbles and still says she stands by her statements made the night before.

I have never seen a link to the entire second memoriale. Here is my transcription of Follain’s version of the second memoriale (pp. 152-153), and I suppose it could be checked against "Waiting to be Heard," and the translation of her testimony in 2009. A portion of the second memoriale is also found in Dempsey's book.

“Oh my God! I’m freaking out a bit now because I just talked to a sister (nun) and I finally remember. It can’t be a coincidence. I remember what I was doing with Raffaele at the time of the murder of my friend! We are both innocent! This is why…[I am like Amelie] because I’m a bit of a weirdo in that I like random little things, like birds singing, and these little things make me happy.” Amanda received the text message from Patrik, and she recalled the broken pipes and Raffaele’s rolling a joint. They had a talk about Raffaele’s mother, among other things. “After our conversation I know we stayed in bed together for a long time. We had sex and then afterwards we played our game of looking at each other and making faces…We fell asleep and I didn’t wake up until Friday morning.” She also wrote, “I’m sorry I didn’t remember before and I’m sorry I said I could have been at the house when it happened. I said these things because I was confused and scared…I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. But now I remember I can’t know who was the murderer because I didn’t return back to the house.”

With respect to the first memoriale, The Daily Telegraph quoted it: "And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house." IMO the second clause completely undercuts the first clause. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Amber29]

I have never seen a link to the entire second memoriale. Here is my transcription of Follain’s version of the second memoriale (pp. 152-153), and I suppose it could be checked against "Waiting to be Heard," and the translation of her testimony in 2009. A portion of the second memoriale is also found in Dempsey's book.

“Oh my God! I’m freaking out a bit now because I just talked to a sister (nun) and I finally remember. It can’t be a coincidence. I remember what I was doing with Raffaele at the time of the murder of my friend! We are both innocent! This is why…[I am like Amelie] because I’m a bit of a weirdo in that I like random little things, like birds singing, and these little things make me happy.” Amanda received the text message from Patrik, and she recalled the broken pipes and Raffaele’s rolling a joint. They had a talk about Raffaele’s mother, among other things. “After our conversation I know we stayed in bed together for a long time. We had sex and then afterwards we played our game of looking at each other and making faces…We fell asleep and I didn’t wake up until Friday morning.” She also wrote, “I’m sorry I didn’t remember before and I’m sorry I said I could have been at the house when it happened. I said these things because I was confused and scared…I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. But now I remember I can’t know who was the murderer because I didn’t return back to the house.”

With respect to the first memoriale, The Daily Telegraph quoted it: "And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house." IMO the second clause completely undercuts the first clause. Your mileage may vary.

Thank you I appreciate this.
Although I would like to read it in its entirety and wonder why it's never been released. This was given to the police?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Thank you I appreciate this.
Although I would like to read it in its entirety and wonder why it's never been released. This was given to the police?

Yes, and PM Mignini quoted back a portion to her in his cross-examination. IIRC Amanda provided the entire text in her book.

 

[otto]

Yes, and PM Mignini quoted back a portion to her in his cross-examination. IIRC Amanda provided the entire text in her book.

I can't find any reference to November 7 in the trial transcripts other than a request from her lawyer to have something from that date accepted by the court.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=17370

I'm curious about why this is being discussed. Is it to suggest that the court was corrupt when Knox was convicted of false accusations of murder?

ETA: Found it

"LG: I accept the reproof. He asked why she didn't tell the penitentiary
police. May I object to this question? She wrote it in the memorandum of
the 7th, on the following morning, to the police that were around her.
She wrote it, it is in the dossier of this trial!

CP: That is not true!

[Background talking]

GCM: Excuse me, excuse me, but this question is not admitted because it was
already asked, avvocato. It's the second time. Please avoid repetitions,
also because the examination of the accused is certainly tiring, so if
we could limit the--

CP: We can suspend proceedings, Presidente.

GCM: We could also suspend proceedings, but the indication is to avoid
repeating questions that were already asked by the same party.

CP: All right.

GCM: Go ahead.

CP: In the memorandum of the 7th, why didn't you mention Patrick?

AK: I think I thought that everything would be clear since I had written that
everything I had said in the Questura wasn't true. So that meant also the
fact that Patrick--

CP: But you didn't mention Patrick."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I can't find any reference to November 7 in the trial transcripts other than a request from her lawyer to have something from that date accepted by the court.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=17370

I'm curious about why this is being discussed. Is it to suggest that the court was corrupt when Knox was convicted of false accusations of murder?

ETA: Found it

"LG: I accept the reproof. He asked why she didn't tell the penitentiary
police. May I object to this question? She wrote it in the memorandum of
the 7th, on the following morning, to the police that were around her.
She wrote it, it is in the dossier of this trial!

CP: That is not true!

[Background talking]

GCM: Excuse me, excuse me, but this question is not admitted because it was
already asked, avvocato. It's the second time. Please avoid repetitions,
also because the examination of the accused is certainly tiring, so if
we could limit the--

CP: We can suspend proceedings, Presidente.

GCM: We could also suspend proceedings, but the indication is to avoid
repeating questions that were already asked by the same party.

CP: All right.

GCM: Go ahead.

CP: In the memorandum of the 7th, why didn't you mention Patrick?

AK: I think I thought that everything would be clear since I had written that
everything I had said in the Questura wasn't true. So that meant also the
fact that Patrick--

CP: But you didn't mention Patrick."

Here is the testimony where PM Mignini questions her about it:
GM: I see. All right. I take note of what you're saying. Now, let's talk
about your memorandum from the 7th, still written in total autonomy, without
anyone around you. You wrote: "I didn't lie when I said that I thought the
murderer was Patrick. At that moment I was very stressed and I really did
think that it was Patrick." Then you add "But now I know that I can't know who
the murderer is, because I remember that I didn't go home." Can you explain
these concept to me?

AK: Yes, because I was convinced that I somehow could have forgotten. So in
that moment, I--

GM: So what you had said might have actually been true?

AK: Yes.

 

[otto]

Most importantly, regarding the letter of November 7, 2007

"CP: On the 7th you wrote "I didn't lie when I said the murderer might be
Patrick." Why did you write that in your memorandum of the 7th?

...
CP: In the memorandum of the 6th you name Patrick. On the 7th you write another
memorandum confirming that Patrick is the assassin. But on the 10th, you tell
your mother that you feel terrible because you got him put in prison and you
know he is innocent. Do you confirm this?"

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=17370

 

[otto]

Here is the testimony where PM Mignini questions her about it:
GM: I see. All right. I take note of what you're saying. Now, let's talk
about your memorandum from the 7th, still written in total autonomy, without
anyone around you. You wrote: "I didn't lie when I said that I thought the
murderer was Patrick. At that moment I was very stressed and I really did
think that it was Patrick." Then you add "But now I know that I can't know who
the murderer is, because I remember that I didn't go home." Can you explain
these concept to me?

AK: Yes, because I was convinced that I somehow could have forgotten. So in
that moment, I--

GM: So what you had said might have actually been true?

AK: Yes.

So we know that in the voluntary letters of November 6 and 7 she confirmed her accusations against Patrick. Is it any surprise that she was convicted?

 

[Monzoo]

What did Knox recant? She implicated Patrick and said that she was not present during the murder, but she stood behind her statements about Patrick.

How is she supposed to know if Patrick was there if she wasn't? I don't know (and I certainly wouldn't assume) that she would think that the only reason the police arrested Patrick was her statement.

It would be rational to believe, in her place, that the police had evidence that pointed to Patrick, and that he was indeed the killer. We know that this is not the case now, but is it unreasoable that Amanda would think this? She did fully retract her statement within that first day or two. At that point, the onus is on the police to release Patrick.

There was no evidence of Guede in Filomina's bedroom, although it is quite possible that bloggers will say otherwise.

This is one of the problems, among many, with the investigation. They did not do more than a cursory examination of Filomina's room. Had they done a better investigaton, they might have found some evidence.

In fact, the so called staged break in was asserted during trial, but I can't think of a single thing that they presented to prove it.

 

[~n/t~]

Here is the testimony where PM Mignini questions her about it:
GM: I see. All right. I take note of what you're saying. Now, let's talk
about your memorandum from the 7th, still written in total autonomy, without
anyone around you. You wrote: "I didn't lie when I said that I thought the
murderer was Patrick. At that moment I was very stressed and I really did
think that it was Patrick." Then you add "But now I know that I can't know who
the murderer is, because I remember that I didn't go home." Can you explain
these concept to me?

AK: Yes, because I was convinced that I somehow could have forgotten. So in
that moment, I--

GM: So what you had said might have actually been true?

AK: Yes.

She couldn't know who it was because she suddenly remembered she didn't go home?

Her statement makes absolutely no sense.

 

[otto]

How is she supposed to know if Patrick was there if she wasn't? I don't know (and I certainly wouldn't assume) that she would think that the only reason the police arrested Patrick was her statement.

It would be rational to believe, in her place, that the police had evidence that pointed to Patrick, and that he was indeed the killer. We know that this is not the case now, but is it unreasoable that Amanda would think this? She did fully retract her statement within that first day or two. At that point, the onus is on the police to release Patrick.



This is one of the problems, among many, with the investigation. They did not do more than a cursory examination of Filomina's room. Had they done a better investigaton, they might have found some evidence.

In fact, the so called staged break in was asserted during trial, but I can't think of a single thing that they presented to prove it.

Broken glass on top of the ransacked items from Filomina's closet was the first clue that the room was ransacked prior to the window being broken.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

So we know that in the voluntary letters of November 6 and 7 she confirmed her accusations against Patrick. Is it any surprise that she was convicted?

IMO Pacelli is obviously wrong in saying that the letter of 7 November confirms her statement that Patrik was the assassin. We can each read it for ourselves and come to our own conclusions. In addition, here is a link to Amanda's letter to her lawyer.