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

[redheadedgal]

Reading that they quote a blogger as their source.
In the same link you provide they go on to say a source of the glass fragment found in Meredith's room can't be confirmed.
Also Rudy Guede was not charged with breaking and entering and that has been confirmed by cassation.

which link quoted a blogger?

if this glass evidence did exist, is it possible RG wasn't charged with b&e b/c that would help destroy the fact AK and RS were possibly involved? if they didn't believe RG broke in (or didn't care to believe), why would they charge him?

i wonder where the claim there was glass found in RG's shoe originated from if not true...

It's true we can't believe everything that is reported by the media in this case because there's been a ton a mis information that wasn't evidence. A huge PR spin being the biggest reason for this.

police and the prosecution have put out plenty of misinformation, even outright lies. let's not forget that.

 

[otto]

I think you stated earlier that AK was whacked out on drugs, which, in part, led to her killing MK. Why then, do you find it hard to believe that her memory of that night might be fuzzy and she recalled it to the best of her ability?

I was quoting someone else's description of Sollecito and Knox being "whacked out" on drugs. Of course they were stoned. They used the fact that they were stoned to explain their multiple lies and changing alibi. Each time they were caught in a lie, they said: oops, I was stoned and everything is imaginary and fuzzy and I don't remember, and then followed with another lie.

 

[otto]

which link quoted a blogger?

if this glass evidence did exist, is it possible RG wasn't charged with b&e b/c that would help destroy the fact AK and RS were possibly involved? if they didn't believe RG broke in (or didn't care to believe), why would they charge him?

i wonder where the claim there was glass found in RG's shoe originated from if not true...



police and the prosecution have put out plenty of misinformation, even outright lies. let's not forget that.

Police in the US lie to suspects any time they want. Should Italian police do something different?

 

[redheadedgal]

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.

thanks 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.

i linked the letter of nov 7th back in post 689 ??

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Thanks. Did not know that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A former officer of the Carabinieri named Pasquali showed how the distribution of glass in the room was consistent with its being broken by a rock throw from the outside. Recently a British TV documentary came to the same conclusion.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Police in the US lie to suspects any time they want. Should Italian police do something different?

It is not legal to put out false information after someone has been arrested. In fact there are strict limitations on what can be said at all. Both the U.S. and Britain have sub judice rules. Should Italy do something different?

 

[otto]

i linked the letter of nov 7th back in post 689 ??

That is not the complete letter ... only a couple of excerpts.

 

[otto]

It is not legal to put out false information after someone has been arrested. In fact there are strict limitations on what can be said at all. Both the U.S. and Britain have sub judice rules. Should Italy do something different?

Where is it illegal for police to elicit information about a murder investigation using any means necessary? (short of water boarding, obviously)

 

[whoanellie]

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.

I realize that your comment is specifically directed to her subsequent written statements, but it does raise an important issue with regard to Amanda's first written statement. Everyone agrees that the first written statement was false. Call it a lie or full of lies if you want. There are many different reasons for people to lie. Not all of them are entirely self-serving or evil.

My understanding is the first statement put Amanda, Rafaelle, and a 2nd male at the murder scene. The argument if favor of Amanda's guilt has always been that Amanda, Rafaelle, and a 2nd male were at the scene. The discrepancies between them concern the identity of the 2nd male and the details of what occurred. For many the key falsehood in Amanda's statement is the identity of the 2nd male. And that is what she was convicted of. Of course we do all agree (I think) that Patrick wasn't there and Rudy was. What possible benefit could Amanda have hoped to obtain by replacing Rudy with Patrick? Was she simply trying to protect Rudy? Why would she do that? Was she just trying to confuse the police? Throw them off the trail? Didn't she admit to being there? Wouldn't she have been better off saying that Rudy was there and she left before anything happened. If she did have guilty knowledge, what benefit would she gain from lying about the 2nd male? What benefit would she think she would gain from lying about the 2nd male. Wasn't she arrested immediately after giving the first statement? It seems that her lie didn't work out well for her.

From the view point of Amanda-is-innocent her statement and her "lies" make a lot more sense. Please take a look at the quote I posted above which has been attributed to Chief De Felice. He clearly spells out, from the Perugia Police perspective, what happened. Amanda denied any knowledge or involvement, the police didn't buy it, she "buckled" (suggesting she was under some pressure) and gave them a statement implicating Patrick (which the police "knew" was "correct"). The statement momentarily got the pressure off her but certainly wasn't in her long-term interest. Why did she implicate Patrick? I suspect given the texts between Amanda and Patrick and possibly other evidence that Patrick was already on the police radar. When she did name Patrick the police "knew" it was "correct". Why didn't she name Rudy? I don't think his name had come to the attention of the police at that point and she had absolutely no idea that he was involved. She wasn't there.

OK, she lied about Patrick. We all know that. But there is a long convoluted leap of logic from that to "she was involved in the murder of Meredith". It just doesn't add up.

In her subsequent statements it seems she continues to say that Patrick "might" or "could" have been involved in the death of Meredith. She had absolutely no idea that he wasn't involved. She wasn't there. And the police seemed to think he was. They "knew" it was "correct".

 

[SMK]

Where is it illegal for police to elicit information about a murder investigation using any means necessary? (short of water boarding, obviously)

Well, in the US, an arrest warrant obtained with false information is invalid.

 

[otto]

I realize that your comment is specifically directed to her subsequent written statements, but it does raise an important issue with regard to Amanda's first written statement. Everyone agrees that the first written statement was false. Call it a lie or full of lies if you want. There are many different reasons for people to lie. Not all of them are entirely self-serving or evil.

My understanding is the first statement put Amanda, Rafaelle, and a 2nd male at the murder scene. The argument if favor of Amanda's guilt has always been that Amanda, Rafaelle, and a 2nd male were at the scene. The discrepancies between them concern the identity of the 2nd male and the details of what occurred. For many the key falsehood in Amanda's statement is the identity of the 2nd male. And that is what she was convicted of. Of course we do all agree (I think) that Patrick wasn't there and Rudy was. What possible benefit could Amanda have hoped to obtain by replacing Rudy with Patrick? Was she simply trying to protect Rudy? Why would she do that? Was she just trying to confuse the police? Throw them off the trail? Didn't she admit to being there? Wouldn't she have been better off saying that Rudy was there and she left before anything happened. If she did have guilty knowledge, what benefit would she gain from lying about the 2nd male? What benefit would she think she would gain from lying about the 2nd male. Wasn't she arrested immediately after giving the first statement? It seems that her lie didn't work out well for her.

From the view point of Amanda-is-innocent her statement and her "lies" make a lot more sense. Please take a look at the quote I posted above which has been attributed to Chief De Felice. He clearly spells out, from the Perugia Police perspective, what happened. Amanda denied any knowledge or involvement, the police didn't buy it, she "buckled" (suggesting she was under some pressure) and gave them a statement implicating Patrick (which the police "knew" was "correct"). The statement momentarily got the pressure off her but certainly wasn't in her long-term interest. Why did she implicate Patrick? I suspect given the texts between Amanda and Patrick and possibly other evidence that Patrick was already on the police radar. When she did name Patrick the police "knew" it was "correct". Why didn't she name Rudy? I don't think his name had come to the attention of the police at that point and she had absolutely no idea that he was involved. She wasn't there.

OK, she lied about Patrick. We all know that. But there is a long convoluted leap of logic from that to "she was involved in the murder of Meredith". It just doesn't add up.

In her subsequent statements it seems she continues to say that Patrick "might" or "could" have been involved in the death of Meredith. She had absolutely no idea that he wasn't involved. She wasn't there. And the police seemed to think he was. They "knew" it was "correct".

Knox knew that her mother was arriving the following day and she most likely was preparing to flee to Germany with her mother. She mentioned her interest in CSI shows way back, and I suspect that she believed that if she sent police in the wrong direction, that would buy her enough time to skip town and return to the US via Germany. She did not expect police to arrest her as a party to the murder if her claim was that she was in another room, saw nothing, heard something and did nothing.

Regarding how this all happened, we have to remember that police did not ask Knox to talk with them on the evening that she accused Patrick of murder. She went to the police station of her own volition. Police did not have a plan of entrapping her with information they had about Patrick because they had no plan to talk with her that evening.

 

[otto]

Well, in the US, an arrest warrant obtained with false information is invalid.

Obtaining an arrest warrant, and eliciting information from the public, are very different.

 

[jgsmith]

Police in the US lie to suspects any time they want. Should Italian police do something different?

Ok, so you agree the Italian police lied.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

Ok, so you agree the Italian police lied.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know. It doesn't matter to me. Police can lie to people if they believe that it will lead to the truth regarding a criminal investigation. The police can, and will, say: "We have enough evidence to convict you, so you can help yourself by telling the truth."

 

[SMK]

Obtaining an arrest warrant, and eliciting information from the public, are very different.

OK, point taken.

 

[Footwarrior]

Interviewing a suspect might should only take two or three people. An interviewer, someone to take nots and a translator if needed. When the "interviewed" Amanda in the middle of the night, the Perugia authorities had twelve people involved in the process. Lots of guys to yell and shove one young lady and extract a statement. They also had a deadline, they wanted it done before Amanda's mother showed up the next morning.

 

[~n/t~]

Why would a murderer name a co conspirator risking the chance they would tell? Did Amanda know Rudy fled to Germany?

 

[Footwarrior]

Why would a murderer name a co conspirator risking the chance they would tell? Did Amanda know Rudy fled to Germany?

Outside of meeting Rudy at one party in the downstairs appartment and perhaps serving him at the bar where she worked, there is no evidence of social contact between Amanda and Rudy. No emails, no phone calls, no text messages.

The police leaked to the press that Amanda called Rudy right after Meredith's body was found. Just one of many such falsehoods spread by the police and prosecutors involved in this case. It seems that Italy doesn't mind smear campaigns directed at suspects.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Where is it illegal for police to elicit information about a murder investigation using any means necessary? (short of water boarding, obviously)

I am talking about all of the...missstatements...the police made after the arrests. That violates the principle that when a matter is sub judice, the police and prosecution should remain quiet, with some very limited exceptions.

 

[otto]

Outside of meeting Rudy at one party in the downstairs appartment and perhaps serving him at the bar where she worked, there is no evidence of social contact between Amanda and Rudy. No emails, no phone calls, no text messages.

The police leaked to the press that Amanda called Rudy right after Meredith's body was found. Just one of many such falsehoods spread by the police and prosecutors involved in this case. It seems that Italy doesn't mind smear campaigns directed at suspects.

Guede and Knox socialized a few times including: the bar, a party in the downstairs flat at the cottage, in the piazza. Furthermore, Knox made fast friends in Perugia, with a preference for friends that enjoyed her vice: drugs. She met three men in Italy and had sex with them right away, and after making eye contact Sollecito, she pretty much moved in with him. Meeting Guede three times is enough for Guede and Knox to be good friends.