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

[otto]

Yes, I don't think dishonesty is ever called for. If there is a case, prosecutors and police shouldn't have to lie. So it should have been worded that a call was placed to Mom (didnt Edda say 'leave and phone police' ?) when things were noticed to be quite amiss, but before it was known that a murder had occurred.

So there WAS an earlier call, but it was not placed before "discovering" things were quite amiss at the cottage.

So the prosecutor might have said, "There was an earlier call to your mother, prior to the police knocking down the door and discovering the victim. Why was this?"

and Knox might have answered, "To tell her things seemed awry at the cottage." ------ THEN the prosecutor might have skillfully said, "and you knew, didn't you, that things were far more awry than merely a simply break-in, right?" JMO:moo:

Police and prosecutors are under no obligation to feed their facts of the case to a suspect. Their job is to extract facts from the suspect. It is common for investigators to provide half a truth, or a complete lie, for the sole purpose of learning whether the suspect will provide the truth, or a whopper lie.

 

[aa9511]

And they freed him now. The evidence if true would have been enough to support a conviction, there were 2 eyewitnesses including the other murderer who copped to 25 years. There was enough to convict,

But once that turned out not to be true, it was wrong for the trial judge not to let Ryan go. Now that correction has been made and Ryan is free.

Situation is not the same here.the jury in Ryan's trial had every right to believe the eyewitnesses - it is pretty damning for your co murderer to cop to 25 years if he did not do it. And then to be backed up by an eyewitness who saw him in the lot - So the evidence presented to the jury showed guilt and I could understand how a jury could find him guilty. But once it was proven that the evidence was a lie, the jury's verdict crumbled.

The same should happen here w AK. The DNA used to convict has been proven by independent experts to be a joke- her conviction should be overturned or at minimum she should be given a completely new trial. In Ryan's case, the evidence (though faulty) would have been, if true, a strong case for guilt. Here, there is nothing for them to rely on.

Oh I see. So 10 years spent in prison for something you didn't do, oh whatever. Just chalk it up to people lying? 10 years taken out of his life. Does it make it ok it was overturned, 10 years later? The defense discredited the witnesses, that is all that they had the power to do. They tried to show the jurors the reasons the witnesses were confused/lying. They showed inconsistencies between the friend's testimony in the court and what he actually told police during interrogations. THey tried to show that he was confused. What more power did they have in that case?

Also, it was overturned by a high court, only after the conviction was upheld by a lower judge. The conviction was upheld by the judge after the witnesses admitted they were lying. In other words, even them admitting they were lying was not enough. His conviction still stood. The judge said he didn't believe the witnesses new statements!!!!!!

It was only after they discovered the secret visit in jail by the prosecutor to one of the witnesses, that the appeals court judge said it was a Brady violation because it wasn't disclosed to the defense, and they overturned the conviction. That was the technical reason for the overturning. But in the opinon. the appeals judges pointed out the numerous other problems in the case.

My point is, without that Brady violation, even the appeals judges probably woulnd't have had the power to overturn both the jury's conviction and the lower judge's upholding of that conviction.

That happened in U.S.A..

 

[otto]

All this makes sense... Because she was stoned! People seem to ignore the fact that amanda was a 20 year old college kid. I don't think when I was in college - let alone if I was drunk/stoned- I could recreate my events exactly every day. Some people are also very nervous people - they clam up or they get all confused when they are in tight situations. Her roommate was just murdered and she was alone in a foreign country, think how you would react, not now as a full grown adult but as a stupid stoned college kid.

None of these alleged inconsistencies could support even an arrest let alone a conviction in an American courtroom. You need alot more to make this a circumstantial case. You need the knife to match, you need Amanda's DNA to at least be in the room, you need some physical evidence to link her to the crime.

Knox was attending a language course in Perugia. She had one year of University under her belt. Guede had been training as a chef when the restaurant where he worked closed. They were both living independently in Perugia, enjoying the life of drugs and party. They were both 20 years old.

If we must infantalize them, so be it. Guede, the little kid, didn't get all clammy and nervous when faced with the fact that he was present during a murder. He came clean, even though he too was probably stoned on the night of the murder. The little kid Guede did the right thing. The little kid Knox is still changing her stories.

 

[aa9511]

And they freed him now. The evidence if true would have been enough to support a conviction, there were 2 eyewitnesses including the other murderer who copped to 25 years. There was enough to convict,

But once that turned out not to be true, it was wrong for the trial judge not to let Ryan go. Now that correction has been made and Ryan is free.

Situation is not the same here.the jury in Ryan's trial had every right to believe the eyewitnesses - it is pretty damning for your co murderer to cop to 25 years if he did not do it. And then to be backed up by an eyewitness who saw him in the lot - So the evidence presented to the jury showed guilt and I could understand how a jury could find him guilty. But once it was proven that the evidence was a lie, the jury's verdict crumbled.

The same should happen here w AK. The DNA used to convict has been proven by independent experts to be a joke- her conviction should be overturned or at minimum she should be given a completely new trial. In Ryan's case, the evidence (though faulty) would have been, if true, a strong case for guilt. Here, there is nothing for them to rely on.

Also, the "other murderer" is the same guy who claims he saw them doing it in his "dreams" and who had numerous inconsistencies in his interrogations with the police. Such as saying things which didn't line up with the actual evidence found on the scenee. He was then force-fed answers by the police, such as "he was strangled by a belt." When originally he said they might have used a shirt to strangle him, or he just couldn't remember what they used.

The "other murderer" is probably not the murderer. That's the whole point. It was just a confused guy. Who had blacked-out and saw the news and sat there for 2 years thinking, omigosh what if I did this? And his worry led to dreams, which he thought was based on reality.

 

[SMK]

Police and prosecutors are under no obligation to feed their facts of the case to a suspect. Their job is to extract facts from the suspect. It is common for investigators to provide half a truth, or a complete lie, for the sole purpose of learning whether the suspect will provide the truth, or a whopper lie.

I know that this is the case. I am just a stickler for honesty. :blushing:

 

[otto]

The Supreme Court of Italy threw out her alleged confession, which was not really a confession at all, it was her imaging a scenario at the polices insistence. There is no DNA evidence, none of Meredith on the knife and the bra clasp was not reliable so said an independent panel of experts.

Ok, so what then are you left with?rudy's DNA was all over the crime scene, and his DNA was in the toilet- he has no right being in that house, and he admits he was there when the crime happened, and he then fled. And his DNA was found inside her body, sure sounds like a rape to me.

No one established that knife was the murder weapon either (even if it has Meredith's DNA on it). If you brutally stabbed someone multiple times, would not the knife have lots of blood on it? This knife did not. Also, there would be no debate that the knife would fit the cuts on the body - this did not.

I don't see how the luminal proves anything, they were in the house, they might have stepped in the blood. More telling, why was not their a bloody footprint of theirs in Meredith's room? How did they do this brutal murder yet leave no evidence in the bedroom?

How could they do this brutal murder yet not leave their DNA all over the bedroom and the body? (Like Rudy did). Rudy did this in a burglary gone bad to perhaps he even wanted to rape amanda or Meredith and went there w that intention.

Amanda's actions can equally be interpreted as her being a dumb kid. And just bc you interpret one persons actions as a kid does not mean you need to interpret another's of the same age as a kid. Just because someone is the same age does not mean they act alike. Rudy, I don't think, went there to actually murder MK, I think he wanted to get w her or amanda (as most 20 year old guys do), & wanted to steal some money (as he tried this a few days earlier). Unfirtunately, these type of crimes happen every day here & they just do not get the media attention this one did.

It is a shame MK's real murderer is not being punished more. I cannot believe people - even those who think AK is guilty- would be happy with RG's light sentence

Knox didn't confess. She accused an innocent man of murder one hour after voluntarily going to the police station. Many people attempt to twist this false accusation into a false confession as it is then possible to link all sorts of statistics about false confessions that are extracted after hours of harsh US style interrogation. That simply didn't happen. That is Knox's fantasy, used to justify her criminal behavior.

She has been convicted for falsely accusing an innocent man of murder, she has served her three year prison sentence and the Supreme Court has upheld her conviction.

Infantalizing again ... Guede, the dumb kid, and Knox, another dumb kid, both 20 year old adults, essentially implicated each other. Little boy Guede stated that little girl Knox and grown woman Meredith were arguing. Little girl Knox stated that grown man Patrick (replace this with "a black man") murdered grown woman Meredith in her bedroom.

 

[otto]

Perhaps other websleuthers know more about other cases, but it is usually the case that in such a personal murder like this, you are literally touching the victim when doing the crime. Wouldn't Amanda's DNA be somewhere on the body if she was stabbing her? And if she was in the room wouldn't her fingerprints be on the counter, etc? Why was Rudy's DNA all over? I mean didn't the prosecutors allege AK was holding her down? Well then why was there no physical evidence of this? Would not MK fight back and leave some kind of mark,etc in AK? I think MK was maybe even stronger than AK.

You do not need physical evidence in a strong circumstantial case. But I don't see how you have any circumstantial case here let alone a strong one. AK was stoned the night of the murder, I could see how she might not remember when she called her mother, etc. You need alot of circumstantial evidence to make up a case that has no physical evidence, and this does not have it,

Also, generally for a jury, without physical evidence you need a strong motive. Although not legally required, juries need it if they have no physical evidence, you need a motive to tie the circumstantial evidence together. Here you have no motive on why a kid would turn on their roommate. This would be the first case in mankind where someone was killed bc the victim complained they did not flush the toilet.

Remember even though I believe AK is 100% innocent, even if I thought she was 95% guilty, that still is not enough to convict. There is no way this case proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, People may believe AK did it, but without strong physical evidence you cannot make a case here. The circumstantial evidence is consistent with how a quirky kid would act, alone in a foreign country, and subject to a traumatic event.

Knox had an injury on her neck after the night of the murder. There is evidence throughout the crime scene of the involvement of all three suspects. If we redefine the crime scene and restrict it to a few feet on either side of Meredith's body, we can almost exclude little boy Guede.

 

[Myvice]

The Italians wanted it to be AK And Patrick. Once Patrick had an alibi, and the physical evidence pointed straight to Rudy, they had to figure out what to do w Amanda. Remember this was international news at this point. I recall seeing this in Good morning America and they were going with this crazy sex game thing. So for the Italians to turn around and say AK had no involvement, and this was just a run of the mill burglary and rape/murder would have been a huge embarassement, they needed AK to be part of the crime.

I'm not quite sure why this would be a huge embarrassment. In the US every one and their dog jumps on the bandwagon in a high profile case. Lawyers, professors, psychologists, writers and journalists can't let a good crisis go to waste and use the press to their advantage.

When the case ends, they move on to the next one and the public does too.

Rebecca Zahura's case comes to mind. Although her case may never go to trial because the money and PR campaign seems to have moved interest in another direction. No one will make money that we know of because the Shacknai's hold the purse strings.

This wayward child, Amanda, was seen as adult enough in her parents eyes to be living in a foreign country. The fact that she was stoned out of her mind and "can't remember" is an excuse being pushed around. And somehow, lying to protect yourself has become acceptable. If anyone should be embarrassed it should be those that find these behaviors acceptable and understandable. MOO

 

[otto]

The Italians wanted it to be AK And Patrick. Once Patrick had an alibi, and the physical evidence pointed straight to Rudy, they had to figure out what to do w Amanda. Remember this was international news at this point. I recall seeing this in Good morning America and they were going with this crazy sex game thing. So for the Italians to turn around and say AK had no involvement, and this was just a run of the mill burglary and rape/murder would have been a huge embarassement, they needed AK to be part of the crime.

Knox implicated Patrick. Police continued investigating and Patrick was cleared. Their continued investigation did not clear Knox. It makes no sense to suggest that police were ethical in terms of clearing Patrick, who was a foreigner, but not Knox, who was also a foreigner? Why would that be?

 

[otto]

I know that this is the case. I am just a stickler for honesty. :blushing:

I think that everyone appreciates honesty and integrity, but when dealing with criminals and murderers, it is the responsibility of the suspect to be truthful.

In terms of the prosecutor asking Knox about a 12:47 phone call and stating that it was at 12, Knox continued to deny that she made a phone call before the body was discovered. If she had stated that the call was closer to 12:30 or 12:45, she would have revealed that she was lying about not remembering the phone call. She's good. She continued to deny that she made the phone call ... or rather ... continued to claim that she has no memory of the phone call.

As a parent, I have been known to tell my children that because I have eyes in the back of my head, I know that they ate a cookie. This would be an example of tactics used to extract information. It's not true, but it is not meant to be truthful. It is meant to elicit the truth from the child. That is what prosecutors do.

 

[Yellow]

Oh I see. So 10 years spent in prison for something you didn't do, oh whatever. Just chalk it up to people lying? 10 years taken out of his life. Does it make it ok it was overturned, 10 years later? The defense discredited the witnesses, that is all that they had the power to do. They tried to show the jurors the reasons the witnesses were confused/lying. They showed inconsistencies between the friend's testimony in the court and what he actually told police during interrogations. THey tried to show that he was confused. What more power did they have in that case?

Also, it was overturned by a high court, only after the conviction was upheld by a lower judge. The conviction was upheld by the judge after the witnesses admitted they were lying. In other words, even them admitting they were lying was not enough. His conviction still stood. The judge said he didn't believe the witnesses new statements!!!!!!

It was only after they discovered the secret visit in jail by the prosecutor to one of the witnesses, that the appeals court judge said it was a Brady violation because it wasn't disclosed to the defense, and they overturned the conviction. That was the technical reason for the overturning. But in the opinon. the appeals judges pointed out the numerous other problems in the case.

My point is, without that Brady violation, even the appeals judges probably woulnd't have had the power to overturn both the jury's conviction and the lower judge's upholding of that conviction.

That happened in U.S.A..

And I agree it was a travesty of justice what happened to Ryan. As I said, the trial judge should have threw out his conviction. He believed the janitor's recant, he did not believe the alleged co murderer,

Travesties of justice do sometimes occur here. The system is not perfect. Fortunately, the appeals process worked here and Ryan got out. I think he might have gotten out in federal habeas had this not worked.

That said, in Ryan's case the false evidence provided a convincing story, I could see how a jury believing that evidence could have found him guilty. The co murderer was just a sick kid who made up things.

Similarly, the prosecutors in AK tried to use a heroin addict to put AK at a different place. I guess that did not work out for them, as the lies were obvious. And what ever happened to the stories about buying stuff at the hardware store the next morning...those stories magically appeared once visited by prosecutors.

Prosecutorial misconduct occurs everywhere unfortunately. It does not mean though that we should tolerate it.

 

[Monzoo]

Perhaps other websleuthers know more about other cases, but it is usually the case that in such a personal murder like this, you are literally touching the victim when doing the crime. Wouldn't Amanda's DNA be somewhere on the body if she was stabbing her? And if she was in the room wouldn't her fingerprints be on the counter, etc? Why was Rudy's DNA all over? I mean didn't the prosecutors allege AK was holding her down? Well then why was there no physical evidence of this? Would not MK fight back and leave some kind of mark,etc in AK? I think MK was maybe even stronger than AK.

You do not need physical evidence in a strong circumstantial case. But I don't see how you have any circumstantial case here let alone a strong one. AK was stoned the night of the murder, I could see how she might not remember when she called her mother, etc. You need alot of circumstantial evidence to make up a case that has no physical evidence, and this does not have it,

Also, generally for a jury, without physical evidence you need a strong motive. Although not legally required, juries need it if they have no physical evidence, you need a motive to tie the circumstantial evidence together. Here you have no motive on why a kid would turn on their roommate. This would be the first case in mankind where someone was killed bc the victim complained they did not flush the toilet.

Remember even though I believe AK is 100% innocent, even if I thought she was 95% guilty, that still is not enough to convict. There is no way this case proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, People may believe AK did it, but without strong physical evidence you cannot make a case here. The circumstantial evidence is consistent with how a quirky kid would act, alone in a foreign country, and subject to a traumatic event.

Agree 100%.

I would also add that I would expect, if there was more than one person committing a murder, that you would have somewhat equivalent evidence of each of the perpetrators.

One thing that is significant, to me, is the imbalance of evidence right near the murder. There is plenty to show RG right near Meredith's body -- DNA, shoe prints, and a palmprint.

There is nothing at all showing AK nearby, and the only thing of RS is the disputed bra clasp DNA.

 

[Yellow]

I'm not quite sure why this would be a huge embarrassment. In the US every one and their dog jumps on the bandwagon in a high profile case. Lawyers, professors, psychologists, writers and journalists can't let a good crisis go to waste and use the press to their advantage.

When the case ends, they move on to the next one and the public does too.

Rebecca Zahura's case comes to mind. Although her case may never go to trial because the money and PR campaign seems to have moved interest in another direction. No one will make money that we know of because the Shacknai's hold the purse strings.

This wayward child, Amanda, was seen as adult enough in her parents eyes to be living in a foreign country. The fact that she was stoned out of her mind and "can't remember" is an excuse being pushed around. And somehow, lying to protect yourself has become acceptable. If anyone should be embarrassed it should be those that find these behaviors acceptable and understandable. MOO

I think the Italian and America systems are different and cannot be compared. Sure, look what happened with Elizabeth smart, etc. it happens where they finger the wrong guy. But it usually is not linked to a specific person, as it was Mignini. He was already under fire for unethical things,& this was an international case at this point where they made up this crazy sex story

 

[Yellow]

Knox had an injury on her neck after the night of the murder. There is evidence throughout the crime scene of the involvement of all three suspects. If we redefine the crime scene and restrict it to a few feet on either side of Meredith's body, we can almost exclude little boy Guede.

Rudy's evidence is on the body and near the scene in the room. Quite simply, AK and RS are nowhere near the murder room according to the evidence,

It is no use quarreling with the amanda <modsnip>. They just believe amanda is guilty and will view the evidence (rather lack of evidence ) in whatever way accomplishes that aim.

 

[Myvice]

And I agree it was a travesty of justice what happened to Ryan. As I said, the trial judge should have threw out his conviction. He believed the janitor's recant, he did not believe the alleged co murderer,

Travesties of justice do sometimes occur here. The system is not perfect. Fortunately, the appeals process worked here and Ryan got out. I think he might have gotten out in federal habeas had this not worked.

That said, in Ryan's case the false evidence provided a convincing story, I could see how a jury believing that evidence could have found him guilty. The co murderer was just a sick kid who made up things.

Similarly, the prosecutors in AK tried to use a heroin addict to put AK at a different place. I guess that did not work out for them, as the lies were obvious. And what ever happened to the stories about buying stuff at the hardware store the next morning...those stories magically appeared once visited by prosecutors.

Prosecutorial misconduct occurs everywhere unfortunately. It does not mean though that we should tolerate it.

Amazingly, the heroin addict knew where he was that night as was verified. Amanda doesn't know where she was. BBM

 

[Amber29]

And they freed him now. The evidence if true would have been enough to support a conviction, there were 2 eyewitnesses including the other murderer who copped to 25 years. There was enough to convict,

But once that turned out not to be true, it was wrong for the trial judge not to let Ryan go. Now that correction has been made and Ryan is free.

Situation is not the same here.the jury in Ryan's trial had every right to believe the eyewitnesses - it is pretty damning for your co murderer to cop to 25 years if he did not do it. And then to be backed up by an eyewitness who saw him in the lot - So the evidence presented to the jury showed guilt and I could understand how a jury could find him guilty. But once it was proven that the evidence was a lie, the jury's verdict crumbled.

The same should happen here w AK. The DNA used to convict has been proven by independent experts to be a joke- her conviction should be overturned or at minimum she should be given a completely new trial. In Ryan's case, the evidence (though faulty) would have been, if true, a strong case for guilt. Here, there is nothing for them to rely on.

For you maybe this case is only balancing on DNA evidence. For me there are numerous witnesses included.

The juries in Italy also have to be at a certain education level to sit on a jury. It's funny that in Ryan's case you are ok with a jury convicting on so little. Yet can't see how an jury in Italy could convict AK and RS. There is a list of circumstantial evidence that is backed by witness testimony.

 

[Yellow]

I think that everyone appreciates honesty and integrity, but when dealing with criminals and murderers, it is the responsibility of the suspect to be truthful.

In terms of the prosecutor asking Knox about a 12:47 phone call and stating that it was at 12, Knox continued to deny that she made a phone call before the body was discovered. If she had stated that the call was closer to 12:30 or 12:45, she would have revealed that she was lying about not remembering the phone call. She's good. She continued to deny that she made the phone call ... or rather ... continued to claim that she has no memory of the phone call.

As a parent, I have been known to tell my children that because I have eyes in the back of my head, I know that they ate a cookie. This would be an example of tactics used to extract information. It's not true, but it is not meant to be truthful. It is meant to elicit the truth from the child. That is what prosecutors do.

This phone call bit is just silly. I called my mother plenty of times in the middle of the night and given that it was a different time zone, AK could very well have called her mother that night to talk about RS, her studies, etc. maybe she does not remember exactly when she called.

But to impute her calling her mother or to say that just bc she lied or did not remember the time she called her mother is very thin evidence to even lend any support to a murder charge.

 

[aa9511]

I think the Italian and America systems are different and cannot be compared. Sure, look what happened with Elizabeth smart, etc. it happens where they finger the wrong guy. But it usually is not linked to a specific person, as it was Mignini. He was already under fire for unethical things,& this was an international case at this point where they made up this crazy sex story

Juan Martinez comes to mind, he was alleged by the defense counsel in both of his last two cases for "prosecutorial misconduct." Which the judge denied in both cases. So what is alleged or hurled at him, does not make it true. In Juan's case, it was just a matter of the defense was throwing everything up and seeing what would stick in terms of either getting their client off the hook.

But of course some could see the alleged claims by the defense towards Juan, and read that as "oh this Juan guy, he sure is a shady prosecutor."

 

[Yellow]

Knox didn't confess. She accused an innocent man of murder one hour after voluntarily going to the police station. Many people attempt to twist this false accusation into a false confession as it is then possible to link all sorts of statistics about false confessions that are extracted after hours of harsh US style interrogation. That simply didn't happen. That is Knox's fantasy, used to justify her criminal behavior.

She has been convicted for falsely accusing an innocent man of murder, she has served her three year prison sentence and the Supreme Court has upheld her conviction.

Infantalizing again ... Guede, the dumb kid, and Knox, another dumb kid, both 20 year old adults, essentially implicated each other. Little boy Guede stated that little girl Knox and grown woman Meredith were arguing. Little girl Knox stated that grown man Patrick (replace this with "a black man") murdered grown woman Meredith in her bedroom.

Do people actually believe Rudy is innocent? I could see how people could misread the lack of evidence and try to twist it to make a cirumstantial case against Amanda... But to imply that Rudy is innocent in this mess is another thing..

People may be too old to remember but think of yourself at 20. Would you be making the same decisions as you do now? Probably not, for most people, especially the youth of today who are just plain immature.

 

[Myvice]

I think the Italian and America systems are different and cannot be compared. Sure, look what happened with Elizabeth smart, etc. it happens where they finger the wrong guy. But it usually is not linked to a specific person, as it was Mignini. He was already under fire for unethical things,& this was an international case at this point where they made up this crazy sex story

The reason a specific guy was linked is because Amanda linked him to the crime.

Do we know that the crazy sex story wasn't true? I guess we are supposed to believe the crazy drug story creating no memory...