Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#5

[Yellow]

If they agree with her about the interrogation consisting of coercion, the language barrier, the lack of attorney, and in particular the special circumstances of not being informed of being considered a suspect , they may indeed be interested in rectifying the ruling of slander.

I also think this ECHR issue could effect a call (if necessary) for extradition. I think her attorneys are being quite strategic in this aspect.

I suspect being heard by the ECHR will take months. They get over 1000 petitions a year and it may be the case like a regular court where parties submit briefs, perhaps there are oral arguments, etc and It can be however long for a decision. Nothing will be done before Jan, 10 I don't think in terms of resolution unless there was some sort of emergency thing.

But her lawyers knew to change the tone of the news coverage today.

Her lawyers can manipulate the timing but only to an extent, there was a deadline she needed to submit her appeal to them by I assume.

I would think if the Italian court relies on a circumstantial case w little DNA involvement upheld by the Supreme Court there is little the ECHR can do. I would think they will get more involved only bc of the statement to police or the DNA evidence (if she has to submit an appeal later to them, she has a strong case on the DNA, which would raise human rights concern if the Italian system relies on DNA evidence that other European countries reject. This is also her best argument against extradiction)

 

[Nova]

Of course it can't be knowledge of the crime, it has be another good guess by Amanda. So now she was right about the sexual violence, the loud scream, and a black man did it. Not to mention telling Meredith's friends "she *advertiser censored**ing bled to death".

You are making an arbitrary list from various sources.

We know she heard that MK was stabbed to death from Lucas via RS. Assuming that someone who was stabbed had "screamed" is no great leap.

And since at that point, AK had seen no evidence of a robbery, so it also makes sense that she would assume sexual assault was the notice.

The "black man" was suggested by the carabinieri.

 

[aa9511]

I only wish that PM Mignini had been constrained in that way. As one lawyer put it: "During the summation, the prosecutor told the jury about the things Amanda Knox might have said to Meredith Kercher before the alleged drug-induced orgy that ended with her throat being slashed.

“You are always behaving like a little saint. Now we will show you. Now we will make you have sex.”

This would be a horrible thing to say, except that it never happened. No one says that such a statement was ever made. But summations in Perugia aren’t limited to evidence, as they are here. Rather, this is a permissible indulgence into fantasy, a made up dramatization of what the prosecutors contend might have happened. It’s used to inflame the jury. It’s what prosecutors try to do everywhere, except that there are no restrictions on such fabrications in Italy. Still, arousing passion gets a far better visceral response that appealing to reason. Reason requires evidence."

Okay, then if the rules are different, why do we have to go with the standard of "reasonable doubt" which is in the U.S.? That was the original post I was responding to, was about if we had any reasonable doubt (by that apparently meaning ANY doubt), then we should assume not guilty.

I see if the rules are different, then that could also be turned on its head.......

 

[MichaelSmith]

Yes, it seems it's fine with the supporters of their innocence that we should all jump out and rescue Amanda and Raffaelo from themselves, from their own lies, from their own stories, from their own "truths." We should constantly speculate on their behalf. We should constantly think of "other reasons" why they did such-and-such thing.

It's all excuses, is what it is. I am not going to make excuses for them, and pretend like I'm doing it for the sake of "reasonable doubt."

The only intentional lie to deceive Amanda told was regarding the pot smoking and she admits it in her book.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

One point that Crini made today

"45. Knox spoke about a scream and a sexual violence before anyone knew. Sollecito said nothing was stolen before they knew."

I never even thought about amanda knowing Meredith had been sexually assaulted or sexual violence being involved before that was known.

One problem with this argument is that it references one of Amanda's statements, which I thought were off-limits legally. However, I would like to know what is meant by saying that Amanda knew that she had been sexually assaulted. Exactly what did Amanda say and when?

 

[redheadedgal]

about amanda's decision to not attend the appeal:

in BN's (nope!! see edit below) book (p. 5) she asserts that mignini, at the end of the trial, said

If these kids were innocent, how could they sit here and bear listening to this?

so, i don't really see how knox can be faulted any more for only doing what the first instance/original prosecutor asserted, throwing his own words right back in his face imo.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Yes, of course they'll claim that Luca guy knew and told them. How would Luca know when the investigators didn't even know? No one seems to want to acknowledge that fact, it's much easier to believe their way.

No, the media had been reporting Meredith had been raped/had sex with her attacker for days. The autopsy was leaked November 4.

 

[Myvice]

left evidence in the mud? evidence of mud in FR room? why? i see a concrete edge/sidewalk to/around the lower level of the house:

and, why is anyone believing a known heroin addict? AK and RS and their memories are not reliable b/c of (hard) drug use, but curatolo's is?

As you can see from the pic in the link that sidewalk ends once you pass the doorway. There is no sidewalk under the window.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=42&image_id=3499&sk=t&sd=d&st=0

 

[otto]

left evidence in the mud? evidence of mud in FR room? why? i see a concrete edge/sidewalk to/around the lower level of the house:

and, why is anyone believing a known heroin addict? AK and RS and their memories are not reliable b/c of (hard) drug use, but curatolo's is?

The sidewalk stops at the door. This is the ground beneath Filomina's bedroom where investigators searched for evidence. They found a knife. The grass and dirt was not disturbed.



Here's another shot illustrating the dirt and grass beneath the window.

 

[otto]

about amanda's decision to not attend the appeal:

in BN's book (p. 5) she asserts that mignini, at the end of the trial, said

"If these kids were innocent, how could they sit here and bear listening to this?"

so, i don't really see how knox can be faulted any more for only doing what the first instance/original prosecutor asserted, throwing his own words right back in his face imo.

I thought the problem was that she was broke and couldn't afford the airfare. Now she's blaming the prosecutor's office?

 

[aa9511]

And I guess the prosecution is not speculating when they say there was some sort of sex game gone wrong going on nor are they speculating about using a weapon that does not even have blood on it. Nor are they speculating about their being 2 murder weapons instead of one (maybe there is just one missing murder weapon that fits the cuts and has blood on it). Nor are they speculating that luminal prints in the home have a sinister implication as opposed to someone just walking barefoot in their own home.

I would not necessarily trust a prosecutor's explanation of what reasonable doubt is anyway. Of course, every jury knows not to speculate, but what they mean is they do not want the jury to speculate on scenarios and then accept those scenarios as fact that can be used to support the jury's verdict. Like in Scott Peterson, they did not want the jury speculating on how he killed her or how exactly he got her in the water - they only needed to decide whether he killed it, matter of death need not be decided. In that case there was a powerful motive and circumstantial evidence he wanted his wife gone.

Here it is in no way speculation because I am not saying those things definitely happened. I am just using those examples to say we just do not know what happened and that a completely innocent explanation can be explained by the facts in evidence, it is not speculation to say that one scenario is that they were simply not in the murder room because there is no reliable forensic evidence tying them to that room. No reliable DNA, no blood, nothing. The absence of evidence in a room coated with RG's evidence is very telling on who did the crime.

It is prosecution's burden not the defenses. And all I have ever seen from the prosecution is one scenario implying some sex game stitching together various people's statements about AK combined with some apparent inconsisenties in AK and RS and then to appease the fact they have nothing tying her to the actual murder, some DNA evidence that 2 dozen experts discredited.

We will see in a few weeks what the court finds and then ultimately what the higher courts agree with. Mignini IMO did himself no favors by going so over the top in his argument speculating about the sex. It just makes his case look all the more ridiculous. Not sure if he is done yet but maybe there will be more tomorrow.

It is the prosecution's burden, but it's the defense's job to introduce possible areas of reasonable doubt. Which Amanda's defense has done with the DNA, with her lying, etc.. This is all in evidence. And that is what the jury will end up making their decision from. The prosecution's "theory" is in evidence, and the defense knew about it and had ample opportunity to give reasonable doubt. It's up to the jury to decide upon looking at evidence from both sides.

What I don't think they can do is go outside of that evidence and look for reasons/explanations/evidence. Again, what the defense presents is in evidence. If the defense hasn't presented the idea that Amanda and RS were doing some other thing "unrelated to the crime" on the night of the murder, and then they happened to come to the cottage and find Meredith dead, and for that "unrelated reason," they feared getting caught, and so that is why they didn't contact the police and tell them the truth, and that is why they did a cover-up......then the jury cannot go and devise that elaborate scenario, which has nothing supporting it in evidence!

I would think we would be able to agree on this, whether we are for innocence or for guilt, or undecided.

 

[Yellow]

Okay, then if the rules are different, why do we have to go with the standard of "reasonable doubt" which is in the U.S.? That was the original post I was responding to, was about if we had any reasonable doubt (by that apparently meaning ANY doubt), then we should assume not guilty.

I see if the rules are different, then that could also be turned on its head.......

I don't think anyone says that reasonable doubt means no doubt. People who believe in AK innocence simply see the evidence differently than others do and believe that the facts in evidence gives the possibility of alternative scenarios. And the fact that alternative scenarios exist raises reasonable doubt, If the DNA evidence based on intl standards were there some people may feel differently but it is not. The absence of DNA alone in that murder room raises doubt for many people who support AK in a case where there is no motive based largely on circumstantial evidence.

In many cases there is some doubt. In Jodi Arias, she admits stabbing him; is there any evidence at all to support her word that he attacked her (or for that matter any female)? No, no evidence backed up her account and the physical evidence supported the prosecution. It would not be reasonable to believe Jodi Arias where there was no evidence to support her view that her ex boyfriend suddenly decided to kill her and she acted in self defense.

Here, there is evidence to support AK, most notably the absence of DNA and the absence of any tie to the room. It is reasonable to conclude that one scenario is this is a cut and dried burglary with RG as sole perp in a crime that happens probably every day somewhere unfortunately. RG's evidence is all over the scene and AK and RS are not.

 

[aa9511]

Knox says on her blog post today (Nov 25 2013) that her attorneys have filed an appeal of the slander conviction (calumnia charge re Patrick Lumumba ) with the European Court of Human Rights: (she says the police brought his name in and were coercing her)

http://www.amandaknox.com/blog/

Ah, but why would she take responsibility for that when doesn't have to take responsibility for anything else?

 

[aa9511]

Police didn't bring up his name. That's absurd. Knox should make a bigger effort to work with the truth.

The truth and Amanda don't know each other.

 

[geevee]

If they agree with her about the interrogation consisting of coercion, the language barrier, the lack of attorney, and in particular the special circumstances of not being informed of being considered a suspect , they may indeed be interested in rectifying the ruling of slander.

I also think this ECHR issue could effect a call (if necessary) for extradition. I think her attorneys are being quite strategic in this aspect.

I was just wondering about that, if she is convicted (or loses the appeal or however the result becomes guilty), will the US allow her to be extradited?

 

[Amber29]

about amanda's decision to not attend the appeal:

in BN's book (p. 5) she asserts that mignini, at the end of the trial, said



so, i don't really see how knox can be faulted any more for only doing what the first instance/original prosecutor asserted, throwing his own words right back in his face imo.

In BNs book Angel Face? I'm not seeing that quote on pg 5.
I seriously doubt that is how he meant that, I'm sure it's been completely taken out of context. Considering they were jailed at the time and had no choice about attending. I would think he meant more along the lines of lack of spontaneous statements maybe but I'd like to see the whole quote.

 

[aa9511]

What would be so hard about just telling the truth?

There would be no problem with just telling them the context of the call.

I'd like to say again for emphasis....the Truth and Amanda don't know each other.

 

[Yellow]

It is the prosecution's burden, but it's the defense's job to introduce possible areas of reasonable doubt. Which Amanda's defense has done with the DNA, with her lying, etc.. This is all in evidence. And that is what the jury will end up making their decision from. The prosecution's "theory" is in evidence, and the defense knew about it and had ample opportunity to give reasonable doubt. It's up to the jury to decide upon looking at evidence from both sides.

What I don't think they can do is go outside of that evidence and look for reasons/explanations/evidence. Again, what the defense presents is in evidence. If the defense hasn't presented the idea that Amanda and RS were doing some other thing "unrelated to the crime" on the night of the murder, and then they happened to come to the cottage and find Meredith dead, and for that "unrelated reason," they feared getting caught, and so that is why they didn't contact the police and tell them the truth, and that is why they did a cover-up......then the jury cannot go and devise that elaborate scenario, which has nothing supporting it in evidence!

I would think we would be able to agree on this, whether we are for innocence or for guilt, or undecided.

Oh, I agree with that. I was proposing those alternative scenarios as ones that could have happened.

As I mentioned, the reasonable doubt situation presents by the defense is situation number 1 - RG was sole perp and they are factually innocent. The lack of DNA supports this view. The jury could believe AK is factually innocent but they need not.

An alternative view is that the jury can decide they just do not know what happened. I was devising some examples of what could have happened but the jury need not delve into that. They would just need to decide that the prosecution did not prove that murder happened by the defendants. If they are left hanging on what really went on, as far as whether AK and RS were involved in a murder (not in lying), they have to acquit. Without even being able to put AK and RS in that murder, how can they prove that RG was not the sole stabber? They have to get both RS and AK not only in the room but both of them stabbing, three separate people stabbing the same person. I have never heard any case where you had 3 people - 2 complete strangers - stabbing another person all at once. The jury has to believe that is the only reasonable scenario based on the evidence.

Quite simply, the prosecution needs to debunk the argument that RG was the sole perp. Given his DNA is all over, and the other defendants are not, that is a tall order.

 

[aa9511]

This is from Amanda's calumny appeal doc to the SC.

If the county Court [i.e. C.A.A. of Perugia] had delved into the reading of the records of the trial, they would have had the opportunity to notice that the defendant herself during the conversation with her mother on November 10 2007, pages 43-44, confessed:

A[manda Knox]: I said...what happened is that they all had left the room, at that moment one of the police officers said: "I am the only one who can save you, I'm the only one who can save you. Tell me just a name". And I said: "I don't know!" And then they said, I said: "can you show me the message that I received from Patrick?!" Because I didn't remember I had answered him, and so they showed me the message and then I said: "Patrick..." And then I thought to Patrick, of seeing Patrick, that is I think I completely lost my mind and I imagined uhm...to see him and...

M[ellas Edda, Knox's mother]: See him where?

A: See him near the basketball court.

M: Ok

A: And then at my home, I uhmm, imagined that it went that way in the kitchen, that is uhmmm...because I could hear her screaming, but that is not true. It is not [true].

M: So, yes, they now say that you were...Ok.

A: And so it is not true. I said that only because I thought it could be true, because I imagined it. I did not say it to protect myself; and I feel horrible for this. Because I put Patrick in this horrible situation, he is framed in prison now, and it is my fault. It is my fault that he is here. I feel horrible. I did not want to do this. I just was frightened and confused, but now I'm not.

M: Ok, ok.

A: I am here and I am safe and I'm in the clear. But I do not want to stay here; because I know that I do not deserve to stay here.

M: Ok.

From the words of the defendant one infers that, at a certain point, all those who had participated in the "interrogation", as it is called by the C.A.A., get out, except for a "police officer" who invites Knox to remember; then the officer asks her to show the reply message to Patrick, Knox did not remember that she had answered and it is then that she accuses Lumumba.

Excuses, is what it is. Excuses to get Amanda off the hook. She is not my baby, I'm not going to make excuses for her.

She was a grown woman. Take responsibility for your own actions and your own words, Amanda. No one put words in your mouth.

She accused Patrick for one reason and one reason only - to get herself off the hook. Then it backfired on her.

Now she wants people to keep her from taking responsibility for one thing we know 100% to be true, which is she falsely accused Patrick.

 

[Yellow]

It is the prosecution's burden, but it's the defense's job to introduce possible areas of reasonable doubt. Which Amanda's defense has done with the DNA, with her lying, etc.. This is all in evidence. And that is what the jury will end up making their decision from. The prosecution's "theory" is in evidence, and the defense knew about it and had ample opportunity to give reasonable doubt. It's up to the jury to decide upon looking at evidence from both sides.

What I don't think they can do is go outside of that evidence and look for reasons/explanations/evidence. Again, what the defense presents is in evidence. If the defense hasn't presented the idea that Amanda and RS were doing some other thing "unrelated to the crime" on the night of the murder, and then they happened to come to the cottage and find Meredith dead, and for that "unrelated reason," they feared getting caught, and so that is why they didn't contact the police and tell them the truth, and that is why they did a cover-up......then the jury cannot go and devise that elaborate scenario, which has nothing supporting it in evidence!

I would think we would be able to agree on this, whether we are for innocence or for guilt, or undecided.

Actually it is also not the defense's job to do anything. They need not raise reasonable doubt, in fact there have been cases where the defense does not even present a case, simply saying that the prosecution has not met their burden and they rest after the prosecution closes. And sometimes they succeed, not even presenting any evidence. The jury finds for the defense saying the state did not meet their burden,

of course, any good defense lawyer is going to want to give the roadmap to reasonable doubt to the jury but it is not required. It is the prosecution's duty to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubts