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

[redheadedgal]

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

who used the word blame? not me.

 

[redheadedgal]

I did find this quote in Angel Face. In earlier posts it was asserted that the police or prosecutors released Amanda's prison diaries.

Page 96 Angel Face

"At the same time that the Knox family was painting Mignini as a vindictive lunatic, it was flooding the web with pictures of "honor student" amanda playing soccer and holding babies. Unfortunately, those were undermined by Amanda's behavior in Cappanne prison outside Perugia. In the weeks after her arrest, she wrote a diary that would provide even more fodder for the press. Certain favorable pages of the diary were leaked by Amandas defense lawyer, but that simply tipped reporters to its existence, and the entire thing was part of the official 10,000-page case dossier- the holy grail that every journalist wanted on his or her hard dirive"

So it was actually Amanda's own lawyers that started releasing her journal entries.

I don't think we can count as fact alot of these journalists as all of them were in cohorts with one side or the other, this one in particular being pro guilty and even today, some posters on this board disputed her characterization of today's events

plus, amber's quote talks about "favorable passages"... the HIV list of lovers would never be released by amanda's lawyer, imo.

honestly, with the way the media was already portraying her, how could this be seen as "favorable"?

 

[SMK]

Tweets from Andrea Vogt and others say that the prosecution is delivering very aggressive closing remarks after 7 hours yesterday.

Speaking of RS, AK, and RG being "smoked" and "high" and causing an argument with MK.

Crini is also saying there was no agreed on plan:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/download/file.php?id=8786&mode=view

 

[Coldpizza]

Attention please

I'm seeing alot of posts that are stating facts without links. If it's your opinion than say so, if not you need a link to back it up not just referencing this file and pg #. We have many posters that like to read along that would like to see the link.

:tyou:

 

[sherlockh]

Tweets from Andrea Vogt and others say that the prosecution is delivering very aggressive closing remarks after 7 hours yesterday.

Speaking of RS, AK, and RG being "smoked" and "high" and causing an argument with MK.

Crini is also saying there was no agreed on plan:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/download/file.php?id=8786&mode=view

I totally agree with this prosecutor. Nothing was planned. How could it be with work cancelled that late? Just the wrong people getting together that night, with a very annoying Guede on drugs, and Meredith and Knox fighting. This prosecutor was very detailed on all the elements of this horrible murder. Requested 26yrs for Sollecito, and 30yrs for Knox. No links yet

 

[Amber29]

plus, amber's quote talks about "favorable passages"... the HIV list of lovers would never be released by amanda's lawyer, imo.

honestly, with the way the media was already portraying her, how could this be seen as "favorable"?

I did not say her lawyers released the HIV one. I said it was her lawyers that started releasing the entries.

 

[Amber29]

sorry amber... it's the book by nina burleigh: the fatal gift of beauty. i got the initials mixed up lol

the site won't let me copy/paste.

search at google books

Thank you! Ill look at it.

 

[sherlockh]

Prosecutor Demands Guilty Verdict for Knox

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The SCC has made it definate in RGs conviction that he acted with others. It has also been made definate that the break in was simulated.
The defense can not argue these because they are considered definate.

Or I guess the defense can argue but the judges in their reasoning can not use RG as lone wolf or that RG broke in through that window to reach an acquittal.

IIUC

Rudy was tried and convicted in an abbreviated trial in which neither Knox nor Sollecito were represented. Both the prosecution and defense had a reason for arguing that Rudy acted with others in his trial. If the judgments of this trial are to be binding upon Amanda and Raffaele's trial, then the principle that one can see and challenge the evidence presented against oneself will have been trod into the ground. That a defendant should have this ability is a universal right that all liberal democracies profess. The idea that Italy is exempt from securing such a right (among others) is a false argument known as special pleading IMO. Italy has many good friends, within and outside its borders, meaning people who appreciate its culture and history and who want its legal system to be the best that is humanly possible. Good friends, however, make lousy liars.

 

[SMK]

Prosecutor proposes 30 years for Knox:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

 

[Amber29]

Rudy was tried and convicted in an abbreviated trial in which neither Knox nor Sollecito were represented. Both the prosecution and defense had a reason for arguing that Rudy acted with others in his trial. If the judgments of this trial are to be binding upon Amanda and Raffaele's trial, then the principle that one can see and challenge the evidence presented against oneself will have been trod into the ground. That a defendant should have this ability is a universal right that all liberal democracies profess. The idea that Italy is exempt from securing such a right (among others) is a false argument known as special pleading IMO. Italy has many good friends, within and outside its borders, meaning people who appreciate its culture and history and who want its legal system to be the best that is humanly possible. Good friends, however, make lousy liars.

I ended my post with IIUC so are you saying I'm wrong and I've misinterpreted the SCC reasoning?

I posted the pages up thread but here's the link to the full document since I didn't link earlier.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/download/file.php?id=8170

We are talking about the simulated break in from page 62 and RG final judgement page 75.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I ended my post with IIUC so are you saying I'm wrong and I've misinterpreted the SCC reasoning?

I posted the pages up thread but here's the link to the full document since I didn't link earlier.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/download/file.php?id=8170

We are talking about the simulated break in from page 62 and RG final judgement page 75.

No, I don't believe that your interpretation is incorrect. The problem lies within the reasoning itself.

 

[Harmony 2]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/26/world/europe/italy-amanda-knox-retrial/

 

[SMK]

I totally agree with this prosecutor. Nothing was planned. How could it be with work cancelled that late?

Just the wrong people getting together that night, with a very annoying Guede on drugs, and Meredith and Knox fighting. This prosecutor was very detailed on all the elements of this horrible murder. Requested 26yrs for Sollecito, and 30yrs for Knox. No links yet

Prosecutor Crini argued that although Guede has no credibility, experience shows that statements of unreliable perps will quite often contain some details and revelations which are true.

He mentions Guede telling of an ‘argument’ between the girls, and asks why Guede would provide this context?

What are anyone's thoughts on this? Also, that he is asserting that Knox's DNA on the knife handle cannot be from casual contact such as sweating?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Prosecutor Crini argued that although Guede has no credibility, experience shows that statements of unreliable perps will quite often contain some details and revelations which are true.

He mentions Guede telling of an ‘argument’ between the girls, and asks why Guede would provide this context?

What are anyone's thoughts on this? Also, that he is asserting that Knox's DNA on the knife handle cannot be from casual contact such as sweating?

Do you have a link to a summary? So we should believe Guede when he confirms the prosecution's conjectures and disbelieve him otherwise? How convenient for the prosecution. How would Guede (who does not speak English) know what Meredith and Amanda said to each other? How can Guede's version of events come into the trial without his being cross-examined? The notion that Amanda's DNA on the knife cannot have arisen from casual contact is an astonishing statement. It is, as David Evans might have called it, a fantastic lie.

 

[aa9511]

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

Oh I see. That's like a parent who doesn't want to see anything wrong in their child. They rarely can be convinced, they want to see what they want to see.

 

[aa9511]

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

Ok, but I thought Amanda and RS's comments were made on the same day the body was found?

 

[aa9511]

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?

I don't think anyone knows the answer to that. I've heard that US and Italy have agreement to respect each other's judicial system....meaning they can coordinate, I guess, if the other country's citizen is charged with something in one country and, after due process, found guilty. I think per this agreement, they probably have to extradite if the other country asks them to. IDK, MOO.

 

[sherlockh]

Ok, but I thought Amanda and RS's comments were made on the same day the body was found?

Knox mentioned the sexual assault in her 1:45am statement.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Confession#Amanda_Knox.27s_1:45_am_Statement

This was before the coroners report was deposited at the court at 8 November.

From reading the first summary of Dr Lalli's report, deposited at the court on November 8 2007

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1568860/Meredith-Kercher-murder-Judges-report.html

 

[aa9511]

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.

Ok, I agree with this, too. The only problem I have with this is that the innocence-supporters have, it seems, in their own minds completely discounted all DNA evidence of Amanda, and RS for that matter. And so then, with that assumption, it becomes much easier to get to reasonable doubt. I see this as the basis for all the pro-innocent arguments.

Problem is, there was DNA evidence. And it is not a given that the jury will discount that DNA as easily as others do. That is, it is not a given that they will automatically buy the defense's arguments against the DNA evidence.

There was even DNA evidence of Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's. Even taking away the "murder weapon," whether that is the murder weapon or not, there is still DNA evidence of Amanda's involvement. There is less evidence, admittedly, of RS's involvement. (Personally, I don't think that is because RS has a lesser involvement, I think it's because they missed, failed to collect, a lot of RS DNA evidence).

Your scenarios all discount the DNA evidence.

I'm just saying, yes, given that assumption, people can get to reasonable doubt. But that assumption is not a given.

All of your scenarios discount the DNA evidence taken as a whole. For example, you said it could be that Amanda touched the knife, then she was too scared to tell police. Forgetting the other things unreasonable about that assumption, just focusing on DNA - that still leaves other DNA evidence unaccounted for, such as the mixed Meredith/Amanda DNA samples. And the evidence of Amanda in Filomena's room. And that scenario is just not reasonable as a whole. If Amanda was truly innocent, there is no reason she would jump to the assumption, upon finding a true burglary gone wrong, that the police would suspect her. And if it was, like you said, because she was doing some hard drugs......well there is nothing in the evidence that says they were doing hard drugs. Amanda and RS gave their story of being at Raffaelo's house, eating dinner, being on computer, talking, having sex, and going to sleep. And that leaves the question of, why would she continue her lie after all these years - even in the face of potentially being put in prison for the rest of her life?

I keep saying over and over, it's all of the evidence taken as a whole that paints a convincing picture. And the DNA evidence is only one part of that picture. I don't think the jury will completely discount all of it as some posters on here can. So there goes one part of the assumption that lays as the basis for most of the reasonable doubt-scenarios. Then there are her lies/inconsistencies, which again, posters on here completely discount, but I'm pretty sure the jury will not discount them that easily. Then the inconsistencies b/w Amanda and RS stories. Then various problems with the story she tells, finding the body, phone calls made, shower, circumstance surrounding arrival of the postal police/cabinieri. The problem with her alibi story. Circumstances after the murder. Etc..