Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#4

[whoanellie]

My previous response pointed out that ILE did not look for the Swiss professor; it was the other way around. IIUC when he did travel to Perugia, they interviewed him for many hours. Regrettably, the rest of my response was indirect enough to allow it to be misunderstood. I invite anyone to reread it and to PM me if he or she needs clarification beyond the paragraph below.

Although I strongly disagree with pro-guilt commenters, I don't doubt the sincerity and good intentions of the vast majority of them. The passage above tells me that you believe something very different about "many" of the pro-innocence posters: that they have so great a personal investment in Ms. Knox's freedom that they would like to see an innocent man in prison. Really? That fails to explain a great deal, not the least of which is why a number of pro-innocence posters have gotten involved in more than one wrongful accusation or wrongful conviction. I regret that I cannot say more than that we have reached an impasse.

I am not so sanguine about many of the guilters' intentions.

 

[otto]

This upends a lot: Who was this witness?

On the night of the murder, Sollecito was supposed to drive a friend to the bus station to pick up, or drop off, a suitcase (don't remember which). She stopped by at about 8:40 to say that she didn't need Sollecito to give her a ride after all.

That's the only witness that I can think of, but I don't recall testimony from her about what Knox was wearing.

 

[otto]

Actually the footprint that some think should have been so "disturbed" is the bloody footprint that would have dried on bathmat for at least several hours prior to Amanda's shower. In my experience dried blood stains on things such as towels or bathmats are not easy to "disturb" at all. The print is not perfect and I would guess that there is nothing about the print that is inconsistent with a subsequent exposure to a dripping wet person. On the other hand I wouldn't expect a dripping and shimmying Amanda to have dramatically altered a footprint left in dried blood.

For Heaven's sake haven't these people tried to clean up a blood stain?

After considering all legal arguments regarding expert testimony, the court determined that the print on the bath mat is similar to the foot print of Sollecito.

 

[SMK]

On the night of the murder, Sollecito was supposed to drive a friend to the bus station to pick up, or drop off, a suitcase (don't remember which). She stopped by at about 8:40 to say that she didn't need Sollecito to give her a ride after all.

That's the only witness that I can think of, but I don't recall testimony from her about what Knox was wearing.

Well, what do you make of the clothes on the bed, and no blood on them? Does not hang together with the murder theory at all....ETA: How has this been explained by others, such as TJMK?

 

[SMK]

I am not so sanguine about many of the guilters' intentions.

......

 

[MichaelSmith]

Well, what do you make of the clothes on the bed, and no blood on them? Does not hang together with the murder theory at all....

It sure doesn't. That's why Massei has them naked when it happened.

They were having sex in Amanda's room and Meredith was in her room studying or playing with her phone and then Guede knocks on the door. Amanda lets him in and then goes back to having more sex. Guede gets all horny and makes a move on Meredith then Amanda & Raffaele joined him in attacking Meredith.

No, I'm not making this up. That was Massei's crime theory.

 

[SMK]

It sure doesn't. That's why Massei has them naked when it happened.

They were having sex in Amanda's room and Meredith was in her room studying or playing with her phone and then Guede knocks on the door. Amanda lets him in and then goes back to having more sex. Guede gets all horny and makes a move on Meredith then Amanda & Raffaele joined him in attacking Meredith.

No, I'm not making this up. That was Massei's crime theory.

Mmmm, that is not too good ...forces the sex theory... They made the same theory up about Lizzie Borden, when only a few blood drops were found on her dress, and proved to be menstrual blood. Ergo, naked during the murder. Not a very strong point .....thanks for the info ETA: I suppose this could be feasible with the use of drugs, but......well.......

 

[SMK]

Addendum:

Now I do recall Massei saying to the effect, that the sounds of Kercher resisting Guede while Knox and Sollecito were engaged sexually, were so arousing that, "this had to be tried." It's possible, but something awkward there. If one reads enough about Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka, it becomes possible. But not a smooth theory. Of course truth may be stranger than fiction. But this does give one pause....

 

[Amber29]

Hmmm I don't remember Massei saying they were naked. Ill have to look back over his reasoning.

I do know that jodi arias was able to dispose of her clothes and Michelle MacNeils pants were never found. So it can be done.

 

[MichaelSmith]

From

Gumbel, Andrew; Sollecito, Raffaele (2012-09-18). Honor Bound (Kindle Locations 2970-2992). Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

We received the sentencing report in early March 2010. I doubt an Italian court has ever published 427 pages quite this shameful, illogical, or flat-out ridiculous. It was not exactly a surprise to be ripped to shreds by Judge Massei (when he cared to remember that I existed), or to see him endorse Patrizia Stefanoni’s forensic results, or to read yet another account minimizing Rudy Guede’s actions and responsibilities. What I did not expect was to laugh out loud at the sheer absurdity of his arguments.

The biggest surprise, which my lawyers saw as a huge benefit moving toward the appeal, was that Massei did not accept Mignini’s theory of the crime. Massei had clearly paid attention to Giulia Bongiorno when she said I could not have planned a murder with Guede because I did not know him. So, instead of endorsing the premeditated crime conjured up by the prosecution, Massei imagined a spontaneous one. Amanda had not, in his telling, stoked the flames of hatred in her heart over an unflushed toilet, or otherwise marked Meredith for death over a period of days or weeks. Rather, the whole tragedy came about because Rudy Guede needed to take a **** on a cold night.

Bear with me, because the judge’s reasoning is every bit as crazy as it sounds. First, he claimed that Amanda and I spent the evening of November 1 at Via della Pergola. We were, he said, making love in Amanda’s room while Meredith was minding her own business in hers. What evidence did he have for this? Precisely none. “But,” he noted, “there is nothing to confirm that Amanda and Raffaele were anywhere else late that evening.” Massei appeared to have forgotten it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove its case, not simply to say there is no evidence to the contrary. But let’s leave that to one side for a moment; the story gets better.

Rudy Guede, in his account, was wandering the streets of Perugia when he realized he needed to go to the bathroom. Or decided he wanted to spend time with Amanda and me (even though he did not know me). Or was looking for a place to sleep (even though he had an apartment of his own just a few minutes’ walk away). Whatever the precise reason— Massei said there was no way of knowing for sure— he rings the doorbell of the girls’ apartment. And Amanda and I, even though we are busy having sex, decide we have to pause to pull on our clothes and let him in. Did we think it would be rude not to open the door to him, even though it was eleven o’clock at night and we barely knew him? Was there some reason why Meredith, whose bedroom door was still open in the judge’s account, would not answer instead? Massei’s report is entirely silent on the mechanics of this.

In any case, Rudy comes in, goes to the bathroom, and takes a dump. We, meanwhile, go back to our lovemaking. Rudy supposedly finds this a turn-on, to the point where he forgets to flush, comes out of the bathroom, and decides he wants to get it on with someone.

“Lured by the atmosphere of sexual solicitation and giving way to his own concupiscence,” Massei writes in painfully precious terminology, he barges into Meredith’s room to see if she’s willing.

She’s not. Soon, she’s fighting him off and yelling. That gets our attention. But, instead of stepping in to defend Meredith, we take Rudy’s side. We have, after all, been smoking pot— what other spur to irrational violence do two otherwise blameless college students need? Amanda produces my kitchen knife, which she just happens to be carrying around in her handbag, I pull out a pocketknife, one thing leads to another, and the next thing you know, Meredith is dead. “This Court,” Massei concludes, “can only take note of the choice made to engage in extreme evil.” That, for him, was our motivation: extreme evil. Even Mignini had tried harder than that.

What is perhaps most extraordinary about Massei’s scenario is that it was not based on anything heard in court. It was his own imagination at work, from start to finish. Nothing in the Italian justice system prevents judges from taking off on such flights of fancy, but it certainly doesn’t look good. Such sentencing reports effectively say, I don’t like the way the evidence has been presented, so I’ll come up with my own version, which I’ll pluck out of thin air if I have to. Naturally, Massei’s report begged question after question, some of which he attempted to answer, however tentatively.

 

[Amber29]

Thank you for more passages from RSs book. Nothing in there does it say Massei says they are naked like you insinuated. Anyways do we need to start comparing judges reasonings? I feel the same way about Hellmann as you do Massei, luckily the SCC agreed with Massei on most.

 

[whoanellie]

No

From

Gumbel, Andrew; Sollecito, Raffaele (2012-09-18). Honor Bound (Kindle Locations 2970-2992). Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

We received the sentencing report in early March 2010. I doubt an Italian court has ever published 427 pages quite this shameful, illogical, or flat-out ridiculous. It was not exactly a surprise to be ripped to shreds by Judge Massei (when he cared to remember that I existed), or to see him endorse Patrizia Stefanoni’s forensic results, or to read yet another account minimizing Rudy Guede’s actions and responsibilities. What I did not expect was to laugh out loud at the sheer absurdity of his arguments.

The biggest surprise, which my lawyers saw as a huge benefit moving toward the appeal, was that Massei did not accept Mignini’s theory of the crime. Massei had clearly paid attention to Giulia Bongiorno when she said I could not have planned a murder with Guede because I did not know him. So, instead of endorsing the premeditated crime conjured up by the prosecution, Massei imagined a spontaneous one. Amanda had not, in his telling, stoked the flames of hatred in her heart over an unflushed toilet, or otherwise marked Meredith for death over a period of days or weeks. Rather, the whole tragedy came about because Rudy Guede needed to take a **** on a cold night.

Bear with me, because the judge’s reasoning is every bit as crazy as it sounds. First, he claimed that Amanda and I spent the evening of November 1 at Via della Pergola. We were, he said, making love in Amanda’s room while Meredith was minding her own business in hers. What evidence did he have for this? Precisely none. “But,” he noted, “there is nothing to confirm that Amanda and Raffaele were anywhere else late that evening.” Massei appeared to have forgotten it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove its case, not simply to say there is no evidence to the contrary. But let’s leave that to one side for a moment; the story gets better.

Rudy Guede, in his account, was wandering the streets of Perugia when he realized he needed to go to the bathroom. Or decided he wanted to spend time with Amanda and me (even though he did not know me). Or was looking for a place to sleep (even though he had an apartment of his own just a few minutes’ walk away). Whatever the precise reason— Massei said there was no way of knowing for sure— he rings the doorbell of the girls’ apartment. And Amanda and I, even though we are busy having sex, decide we have to pause to pull on our clothes and let him in. Did we think it would be rude not to open the door to him, even though it was eleven o’clock at night and we barely knew him? Was there some reason why Meredith, whose bedroom door was still open in the judge’s account, would not answer instead? Massei’s report is entirely silent on the mechanics of this.

In any case, Rudy comes in, goes to the bathroom, and takes a dump. We, meanwhile, go back to our lovemaking. Rudy supposedly finds this a turn-on, to the point where he forgets to flush, comes out of the bathroom, and decides he wants to get it on with someone.

“Lured by the atmosphere of sexual solicitation and giving way to his own concupiscence,” Massei writes in painfully precious terminology, he barges into Meredith’s room to see if she’s willing.

She’s not. Soon, she’s fighting him off and yelling. That gets our attention. But, instead of stepping in to defend Meredith, we take Rudy’s side. We have, after all, been smoking pot— what other spur to irrational violence do two otherwise blameless college students need? Amanda produces my kitchen knife, which she just happens to be carrying around in her handbag, I pull out a pocketknife, one thing leads to another, and the next thing you know, Meredith is dead. “This Court,” Massei concludes, “can only take note of the choice made to engage in extreme evil.” That, for him, was our motivation: extreme evil. Even Mignini had tried harder than that.

What is perhaps most extraordinary about Massei’s scenario is that it was not based on anything heard in court. It was his own imagination at work, from start to finish. Nothing in the Italian justice system prevents judges from taking off on such flights of fancy, but it certainly doesn’t look good. Such sentencing reports effectively say, I don’t like the way the evidence has been presented, so I’ll come up with my own version, which I’ll pluck out of thin air if I have to. Naturally, Massei’s report begged question after question, some of which he attempted to answer, however tentatively.

Brilliant. Reality truly is stranger than fiction.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Thank you for more passages from RSs book. Nothing in there does it say Massei says they are naked like you insinuated. Anyways do we need to start comparing judges reasonings? I feel the same way about Hellmann as you do Massei, luckily the SCC agreed with Massei on most.

You're right, he doesn't specifically say they were naked but it's implied because he has them in Amanda's bedroom getting it on bigtime.... ergo naked. He had to come up with something to get around no bloody clothes found. They would have been covered in blood....just like Guede said he was.

It's on page 365

Amanda and [391] Raffaele who were together in Amanda’s house; together in Amanda’s room and alone, since Meredith was in her own room and Rudy, as previously mentioned, was in the bathroom.
It is therefore probable that Rudy, coming out of the bathroom, let himself be carried away by a situation that he perceived as being charged with sexual stimuli and, giving in to his sexual urges, sought to satisfy them by going into Meredith’s room, where she was alone with the door at least partly open

 

[otto]

Well, what do you make of the clothes on the bed, and no blood on them? Does not hang together with the murder theory at all....ETA: How has this been explained by others, such as TJMK?

Clothes on the bed. If the clothes on the bed were indeed the clothes that Knox was wearing on the night of the murder, then it would suggest that she was not involved in the mruder and that the clothes were left there after the alleged shower ... a couple of hours before the crime scene was sealed.

So ... that photo of the open door at the crime scene on November 14, 2007, was that investigators gathering more evidence? If so, why is the photo presented as some sort of infomercial that the crime scene was compromised?

The witness at 8:40 can only be the suitcase woman. Did she testify that she could identify what Knox was wearing at 8:40 on the night of the murder? Have the clothes found on Knox's bed the following afternoon, or several months later (planted?), been identified as the same clothes identified by the 8:40 witness? Who is the 8:40 PM clothing witness? Where did the suitcase woman identify what Knox was wearing on the night of the murder and is there a link?

 

[otto]

It sure doesn't. That's why Massei has them naked when it happened.

They were having sex in Amanda's room and Meredith was in her room studying or playing with her phone and then Guede knocks on the door. Amanda lets him in and then goes back to having more sex. Guede gets all horny and makes a move on Meredith then Amanda & Raffaele joined him in attacking Meredith.

No, I'm not making this up. That was Massei's crime theory.

It was actually Knox that claimed she was naked in the bath mat boogie and possibly before taking a shower, not Massei. Perhaps before and after the shower, Knox, with the exterior door unlocked and prone to blowing open, as she found it that day, strutted through the cottage, down the hall to and from the bathroom, stark naked ... but that's according to Knox's story.

If that was the prosecution theory, why is Amanda Knox the alleged inflictor of the most vicious neck injury? The above theory has Guede as the bad guy, the prosecution has Knox as the bad guy. Isn't it Preston that has one of the two prosecutors as insane and so on with unusual PR nonsense ... it's about drugs, imaginings, flashbacks, false accusations, fabricated explanation and all round bad karma with murder. Sollecito, Guede and Knox have bad karma

 

[redheadedgal]

Anyways do we need to start comparing judges reasonings? I feel the same way about Hellmann as you do Massei, luckily the SCC agreed with Massei on most.

but it's okay for some to "start comparing judges reasonings"?

I actually agree as well about Patrick. I mean look what Hellmann did in acquitting the two. In his reasoning he basically implied "these 2 good kids wouldn't hang around RG". It wasn't in those exact words and I'd have to find the quote but that's what he implied. Like they are some how better than him, that is also the view in the media and is why he is always referred to a drifter.

It is covered in the SCC reasoning report. I know a lot of people don't want to acknowledge this because the only correct judge in their eyes is Hellmann.

Hmmmm Hellmann vs NUMEROUS Italian Judges including their supremes..

I don't know why some hold Hellmann to such high esteem while all the other judges don't know what they are talking about, can't read evidence correctly, and are illogical in their thoughts.

And why the cassation court didn't agree with Hellman disregarding RGs declaration:

"The finding of absolute unreliability of Guede’s declarations is incorrect, [according to the Prosecutor General], given that Guede never changed his story as to the presence of others at the crime scene, always indicating [26] the current defendants."

Have you read the Supreme Court reasoning that overturned Hellmann and basically tore his reasoning for disregarding evidence apart?

 

[otto]

Mmmm, that is not too good ...forces the sex theory... They made the same theory up about Lizzie Borden, when only a few blood drops were found on her dress, and proved to be menstrual blood. Ergo, naked during the murder. Not a very strong point .....thanks for the info ETA: I suppose this could be feasible with the use of drugs, but......well.......

Sex theory? Nudity forced the sex theory? The only person that introduced nakedness into the proceedings was Knox with her ... I boogied down the hallway stark naked knowing that the front door was wide open when I came home. Was she thinking: "I didn't care because I like being naked?" What are we to accept from a woman that does this? Amelie? I don't think so.

Lizzie Borden was given a quiet walk into no man's land after her murders. She died in that vast emptiness. She did not protest.

The theory of the crime is that there was a violent sexual assault. Apparently, in translation, a "gang rape" comes down to group sexual violence and assault, like a game ... gotta avoid those "machine" translations! Anyone that speaks a second language knows better than to accept a computer tranlation of a foreign language. It just doesn't work right. Anyway, Satanic killing comes from Douglas Preston, who has his own beef with the prosecutor (he was run out of town for interfering with a murder investigation). Preston reinforced the sex game, satanic ritual theory because he had his own agenda ... and for the record, many people that now believe Knox is an honest woman, also believed Preston's opinion of one of the prosecutors.

The murder of Meredith Kercher was more like a gang rape. Guede admits that more than one person was involved - he has even identified his fellow culprits. This was not a "sex game", but there was a violent sexual assault. There is clearly a langauge barrier when "gang rape" translates to "sex game". Meredith was attacted by multiple assailant (Supreme Court ruling) and she suffered 43 injuries with virtually no defensive wounds. How is that possible?

 

[otto]

Hmmm I don't remember Massei saying they were naked. Ill have to look back over his reasoning.

I do know that jodi arias was able to dispose of her clothes and Michelle MacNeils pants were never found. So it can be done.

Massei did not talk about nakedness. Knox mentioned that she stripped naked, took a shower in a crime scene without a towel, got out of the shower to 50F degree temperatures, opened the bathroom door and instead of running for a towel (it was cold), or using her clothes to stay warm as she headed for the towel, she inched the bath mat down the hall ... even though there was a clear bloody footprint on the bathmat.

Hello. Does that make sense?

 

[otto]

From

Gumbel, Andrew; Sollecito, Raffaele (2012-09-18). Honor Bound (Kindle Locations 2970-2992). Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

We received the sentencing report in early March 2010. I doubt an Italian court has ever published 427 pages quite this shameful, illogical, or flat-out ridiculous. It was not exactly a surprise to be ripped to shreds by Judge Massei (when he cared to remember that I existed), or to see him endorse Patrizia Stefanoni’s forensic results, or to read yet another account minimizing Rudy Guede’s actions and responsibilities. What I did not expect was to laugh out loud at the sheer absurdity of his arguments.

The biggest surprise, which my lawyers saw as a huge benefit moving toward the appeal, was that Massei did not accept Mignini’s theory of the crime. Massei had clearly paid attention to Giulia Bongiorno when she said I could not have planned a murder with Guede because I did not know him. So, instead of endorsing the premeditated crime conjured up by the prosecution, Massei imagined a spontaneous one. Amanda had not, in his telling, stoked the flames of hatred in her heart over an unflushed toilet, or otherwise marked Meredith for death over a period of days or weeks. Rather, the whole tragedy came about because Rudy Guede needed to take a **** on a cold night.

Bear with me, because the judge’s reasoning is every bit as crazy as it sounds. First, he claimed that Amanda and I spent the evening of November 1 at Via della Pergola. We were, he said, making love in Amanda’s room while Meredith was minding her own business in hers. What evidence did he have for this? Precisely none. “But,” he noted, “there is nothing to confirm that Amanda and Raffaele were anywhere else late that evening.” Massei appeared to have forgotten it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove its case, not simply to say there is no evidence to the contrary. But let’s leave that to one side for a moment; the story gets better.

Rudy Guede, in his account, was wandering the streets of Perugia when he realized he needed to go to the bathroom. Or decided he wanted to spend time with Amanda and me (even though he did not know me). Or was looking for a place to sleep (even though he had an apartment of his own just a few minutes’ walk away). Whatever the precise reason— Massei said there was no way of knowing for sure— he rings the doorbell of the girls’ apartment. And Amanda and I, even though we are busy having sex, decide we have to pause to pull on our clothes and let him in. Did we think it would be rude not to open the door to him, even though it was eleven o’clock at night and we barely knew him? Was there some reason why Meredith, whose bedroom door was still open in the judge’s account, would not answer instead? Massei’s report is entirely silent on the mechanics of this.

In any case, Rudy comes in, goes to the bathroom, and takes a dump. We, meanwhile, go back to our lovemaking. Rudy supposedly finds this a turn-on, to the point where he forgets to flush, comes out of the bathroom, and decides he wants to get it on with someone.

“Lured by the atmosphere of sexual solicitation and giving way to his own concupiscence,” Massei writes in painfully precious terminology, he barges into Meredith’s room to see if she’s willing.

She’s not. Soon, she’s fighting him off and yelling. That gets our attention. But, instead of stepping in to defend Meredith, we take Rudy’s side. We have, after all, been smoking pot— what other spur to irrational violence do two otherwise blameless college students need? Amanda produces my kitchen knife, which she just happens to be carrying around in her handbag, I pull out a pocketknife, one thing leads to another, and the next thing you know, Meredith is dead. “This Court,” Massei concludes, “can only take note of the choice made to engage in extreme evil.” That, for him, was our motivation: extreme evil. Even Mignini had tried harder than that.

What is perhaps most extraordinary about Massei’s scenario is that it was not based on anything heard in court. It was his own imagination at work, from start to finish. Nothing in the Italian justice system prevents judges from taking off on such flights of fancy, but it certainly doesn’t look good. Such sentencing reports effectively say, I don’t like the way the evidence has been presented, so I’ll come up with my own version, which I’ll pluck out of thin air if I have to. Naturally, Massei’s report begged question after question, some of which he attempted to answer, however tentatively.

So is Judge Massei and jury that found Sollecito and his girlfriend guilty of a brutal murder in Peruiga (collusion with Guede), Italy (not a medieval town) "not based on anything heard in court?"

Please explain how the court got it wrong.

 

[otto]

but it's okay for some to "start comparing judges reasonings"?

Actually no. People should not "start comparing judges reasonings" It's actually a bit absurd to make a lot of noise about a verdict that has been confirmed by the supreme court ... but hey, run with it.

Even if the DNA argument becomes the only argument in the appellate court (hopefully unlikely), no one will believe it. There's so much that remains unanswered, even after two silly books.