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

[aa9511]

If that is true, then I think prosecutors need to make out some case of motive. It seems like alot of people are saying no motive is required and don't want to discuss it. But if that is a point of law that must be proves in Italy, that is a very weak claim for the prosecution.

Besides thrill kill, what other motive? Do those who believe in her guilt think this was planned or do they think this was spur of the moment? What was preexisting relationship among the three? Does anyone think they knew RG intimately beforehand?

It looks like as far as motive is concerned, Amanda did a good job in staging that burglary.

 

[aa9511]

This could all be explained by the possibility AK and RS came back to the cottage the night before after the murder, saw the scene, then thought what to do. Of course it is not rational not to call the police right away but maybe they thought if they reported it someone would think they did it, especially if AK accidentally picked up the knife. Maybe the knife was even left somewhere like the floor, she picked it before she got to the murder scene, both kids -afraid they could be charged w murder bc AK touched the knife- then came up w the story about not arriving till the next morning, this also explains the phone call to mom, could possibly explain the DNA, etc - all without them being the murderers.

Of course, I believe they were not even there till next morning, but I would entertain the possibility they were in the cottage that night. I think that scenario explains many of the questions that people who believe in her guilt have issues with. It also explains her statement - the scream, etc. Maybe she was in the house that night even, passed out or stoned, during the time of the murder. It does not mean they are the murderer, why no DNA in the room?

I think the possibility of that scenario brings reasonable doubt even if you think them guilty, especially once you eliminate the discredited DNA evidence.

As has been discussed in a few other cases I've followed on here -- why would someone want to make an accident look like a murder? Or, in this case, why would they want to make a brutal crime, commited by someone else, to look like they did it??

 

[Yellow]

Yes I don't doubt that the drugs is what tied the 3 together that night.

I would consider that a reasonable motive, but I think you just have no evidence at all other than the fact that AK met RG when he visited the guys downstairs. There are no texts between them and young people nowadays texts all the time. I think you would need evidence of someone seeing the three together (other than heroin addict), texts between them, someone saying AK mentioned her friend Rudy, emails, etc.

But there is nothing and no evidence at all of a relationship between RS and RG that they even met each other. It is very hard to prove a murder of 3 defendants when there is not even clear evidence that they knew each other. Indeed, I don't think there has even been a case, almost always codefendants are lovers, business partners, etc.

If RG was their drug dealer, it would make the case more plausible. But then why no AK and RS in the room? They would have all went in that room. Why would there be nothing of the two of them? Indeed I think if they had been in that room, they would have tried to explain it - ie RS would have said he once went in the room to talk to MK so as to give an alibi in case his DNA was found. But they did nothing of the type. Both denied ever going in that room and no evidence was found.

Even if they were there doing the murders, you have no evidence AK and especially RS did any stabbing. That knife was not the murder weapon as it strains credibility to even think that it would not have blood DNA all over it nor does it match the wounds. Moreover, at the very least, there is nothing tying RS to the murder. Even if a sex game, maybe he tugged at her bra, that does not mean he was any way involved in the stabbing. They have nothing connecting him to the stabbing and I think bc of that if he was really there and AK did in fact do stabbing he would have turned on her a long time ago. He would have said they played sex game then she and RG started stabbing, he tried to stop them but feared for his own life. If he turned on AK, he would be free now and would be making millions from the tabloids giving dirt on AK.

We focus so much on AK but what really connects RS? Nothing except the bra and there could be alot of reasons for that, sloppy work being the most likely but he could have hugged her, it could be transfer DNA, etc.

I wonder why RS lawyer did not try to separate his trial. Without AKs statement and some of her actions in evidence, they have a really poor case against him...

 

[aa9511]

It really is that simple! Thanks!

Ah, I'm afraid Amanda hasn't gotten the memo about "keeping it simple." Because she is trying her hardest to keep it anything but simple. Enter shower story. Enter bathmat boogie. Enter blaming Patrick. Blaming Patrick!!! Enter pricking Meredith with knife accidentally. Enter water leak at RS place. Enter flurry of phone calls leading up to discovery of the body. Enter strange behavior surrounding discovery of the body. Did I mention blaming Patrick?

No, the simple thing would be they had the computer running all night, playing music while having sex and talking, going to sleep, then getting a phone call the next day from Filomena the next day telling her that Postal Police had gone to the villa to check on some phones that were found, and found Meredith's dead body.

RS and Amanda go over immediately to lend support and offer any assistance.

 

[otto]

Re-read my post again. Luca overheard Bastelli calling the police after he'd gone into the room and lifted the duvet. Luca then told Raffaele & Amanda in the car that Meredith's throat had been slit.

... and the closet and slowly bled to death remarks? Meredith wasn't shot. She wasn't strangled. She wasn't bludgeoned. She "bled to death", which is true. Meredith slowly bled too death ... painfully loosing consciousness knowing that she was dying. Knox expressed it correctly, if not crudely and offensively: she "f-ing bled to death".

 

[aa9511]

You expect a drug dealer to come forward and say "I sold them drugs that night"? :floorlaugh:

Especially not if that drug dealer was RG!

 

[otto]

I agree, I do not know why some youth do what they do. Look at that kid in the ridgeway case....sick

But saying someone is going to push boundaries on study abroad is hardly relevant to whether they will commit murder bc otherwise you would have all kinds of kids studying abroad getting into trouble with the law. What she said about pushing boundaries is just irrelevant.

Whoever kills any human being is not a normal or rational person. It is more understandable I guess if the person has a mental illness, but I don't think anyone can explain what motivates someone to murder. It is not normal behavior,

I believe AK, but I think she comes across as cold and dark and I think that really hurt her. I think she maybe did not always do or say things that were appropriate bc I think she was immature and really should not have been doing study abroad. I think she came from a broken home, was a bit troubled, and probably acted inappropriately w men in Italy. I think she was a good little girl her whole life and she wanted to have reckless sex. At the same time, if you read her book, I think she realized that she was not really the type of girl who could have meaningless sex- I think she thought she could do it without emotional involvement but it did not really work. So I think by the time of the murder, she was retreating back from the boundaries she pushed (w sex and drugs, though less with drugs - I think she did pot bc they all did pot even the roommates).

Many young adults travel and study. Some of them murder. Not all young adults that travel to study murder. "Otherwise you would have all kinds of kids studying abroad getting into trouble with the law" is nit true. There's a low probability that a student traveling abroad will be murdered or commit murder, but it does happen.

What about that young German man that was in the US to study a few years ago. He hooked up with an equestrian ranch brat that wanted to murder her parents for the money. They fled to Europe and eventually were found committing theft/fraud in England ... extradited, tried, convicted.

 

[otto]

"The woman" ???

The suitcase woman ... the one that went to Sollecito's house instead of texting him at 8:40 pm. Knox opened the door. I don't know her name, but I know that there is a woman with a suitcase story.

 

[aa9511]

That's fine. Either way joints are laced all the time, I still find it odd if all you did was smoke a joint and stay home nothing to regret about that.

I smoked a lot of pot in my teens and I've never completely lost my memory of a night to the point I don't know what I did.

Yes, I have never heard of such a violent reaction to pot. I would think the opposite would happen, a little dazed out and calm.

I have no doubt in my mind that some kind of hard drug or combination of different drugs were involved.

 

[Yellow]

As has been discussed in a few other cases I've followed on here -- why would someone want to make an accident look like a murder? Or, in this case, why would they want to make a brutal crime, commited by someone else, to look like they did it??

I think a reasonable scenario is that they could have been on drugs, came home to find the murder scene, did not call police bc of the drugs and that explains some of the weird actions.

That is enough to raise reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is all over this case. You can believe AK did it but it is hard to make a case that there is not a reasonable alternative explanation that explains their actions. Indeed, I have 5: 1) they are actually innocent and only came to the cottage in the morning. Any bizarre stuff was due to AK just being a kid, bizarre, quirkly, weird. She was stoned and did not give consistent details bc she had been doing the same stuff w RS for the past 7 nights and got confused; or 2) they came to the cottage that night after the murder, found the murder, went around touching stuff, was stoned or on hard drugs and were afraid to call police; or 3) they were there during the murder but past out or stoned; or 4) they were there during the murder, maybe they interrupted it, but somehow hid in the closet or whatever while it was going on; or 5) they interrupt the murder. RG realizes he cannot overpower both of them, so he decides not to kill them. But AK and RS are afraid so they do not affirmatively stop the murder but they just let RG finish up and then RG leaves. Or perhaps maybe they interrupt, they see RG and RG just flees, leaving poor MK to suffer. Instead of calling police, MK is still alive, but AK and RS are too stoned to help her.

The possibility of any of these scenarios - which I think is reasonable given the evidence - raises reasonable doubt

Or one can believe the alternative, that they either met up w RG and decided to go do drugs. They tried to get MK involved in drugs or sex but she refused. So they decided to kill her for thrills.

Or alternatively, RG broke in and was murdering MK. AK and RS decide to join in even though they do not know RG and they have no fear he will kill them. So they just decide to join in w RG and stab MK

What makes the bottom 2 scenarios any more plausible than the first 5? Why be so convinced that either of the bottom scenarios happened and not any of the top 5? Numbers 5 and 7 were ridiculous I think but sometimes these things are irrational.

I don't see how you could say definitely that murder is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Look even at the Casey case. I totally think she did it, but the jury believed that George was a shady character and the mere possibility that it was George who moved the body was sufficient to raise doubt. They had no physical evidence at the murder scene, the same thing as here. At least in CA you had a motive - here any motive is based on a bizarre fact pattern

 

[Amber29]

I would consider that a reasonable motive, but I think you just have no evidence at all other than the fact that AK met RG when he visited the guys downstairs. There are no texts between them and young people nowadays texts all the time. I think you would need evidence of someone seeing the three together (other than heroin addict), texts between them, someone saying AK mentioned her friend Rudy, emails, etc.

But there is nothing and no evidence at all of a relationship between RS and RG that they even met each other. It is very hard to prove a murder of 3 defendants when there is not even clear evidence that they knew each other. Indeed, I don't think there has even been a case, almost always codefendants are lovers, business partners, etc.

If RG was their drug dealer, it would make the case more plausible. But then why no AK and RS in the room? They would have all went in that room. Why would there be nothing of the two of them? Indeed I think if they had been in that room, they would have tried to explain it - ie RS would have said he once went in the room to talk to MK so as to give an alibi in case his DNA was found. But they did nothing of the type. Both denied ever going in that room and no evidence was found.

Even if they were there doing the murders, you have no evidence AK and especially RS did any stabbing. That knife was not the murder weapon as it strains credibility to even think that it would not have blood DNA all over it nor does it match the wounds. Moreover, at the very least, there is nothing tying RS to the murder. Even if a sex game, maybe he tugged at her bra, that does not mean he was any way involved in the stabbing. They have nothing connecting him to the stabbing and I think bc of that if he was really there and AK did in fact do stabbing he would have turned on her a long time ago. He would have said they played sex game then she and RG started stabbing, he tried to stop them but feared for his own life. If he turned on AK, he would be free now and would be making millions from the tabloids giving dirt on AK.

We focus so much on AK but what really connects RS? Nothing except the bra and there could be alot of reasons for that, sloppy work being the most likely but he could have hugged her, it could be transfer DNA, etc.

I wonder why RS lawyer did not try to separate his trial. Without AKs statement and some of her actions in evidence, they have a really poor case against him...

BBM now you know how I feel about the claim the bra clasp DNA is from contamination.

I don't think it's a leap that AK could've ran into RG in the piazza and set a "meet" without exchanging numbers.

 

[Myvice]

The suitcase woman ... the one that went to Sollecito's house instead of texting him at 8:40 pm. Knox opened the door. I don't know her name, but I know that there is a woman with a suitcase story.

I think her name is Jovana Popovic.

 

[otto]

He doesn't mention drugs, just that he'll never smoke a joint again.

That is the point. Immediately after having to explain his actions and telling police a load of rubish, he realized that he couldn't backtrack on his story for several reasons: one being that he had lied once. Then he lied twice, three times. Perhaps Sollecito/Knox have no memory of the evening, turning off the cell phones, letting the movie run out, when they ate at 8-8:30 pm, what they did, what they drank, what they smoked, when they turned on the phone at 5:30 am, when they listened to music on the computer at 5:30 am, why they turned on the phone at 5:30 am and then said they slept until 10:30? Then came the whoppers about Guede, and Meredith being at Sollecito's apartment. He was hooped. No surprise that he was convicted.

Should Sollecito be released because DNA belonging to the alleged murderer is on the alleged murder weapon? What am I missing?

 

[Yellow]

:blushing:

Many young adults travel and study. Some of them murder. Not all young adults that travel to study murder. "Otherwise you would have all kinds of kids studying abroad getting into trouble with the law" is nit true. There's a low probability that a student traveling abroad will be murdered or commit murder, but it does happen.

What about that young German man that was in the US to study a few years ago. He hooked up with an equestrian ranch brat that wanted to murder her parents for the money. They fled to Europe and eventually were found committing theft/fraud in England ... extradited, tried, convicted.

You had previously made the point that AK tried to push boundaries and that murdering would fit into that. My point is that AK saying she is pushing boundaries is completely irrelevant to whether she murdered anyone. Most college students go abroad and push boundaries and 99,9% come home without committing any murder. And there is no evidence AK pushed any boundaries except maybe w respect to sex and drugs - again something at least 50% of college kids do ( well maybe not w drugs, but many college kids have sex and many try pot on ocassion.... There is no evidence AK did anything other than what many college students do... Maybe she was slutty according to 1950s standards but that is how alot of kids behave nowadays).

I do not know the statistics but I doubt that there is a higher percentage of kids studying abroad that murder than kids in the general population. Indeed, I would bet the percentage is even smaller bc most kids going abroad are often more studious and less involved w drugs than kids who have no education.

 

[aa9511]

I think a reasonable scenario is that they could have been on drugs, came home to find the murder scene, did not call police bc of the drugs and that explains some of the weird actions.

That is enough to raise reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is all over this case. You can believe AK did it but it is hard to make a case that there is not a reasonable alternative explanation that explains their actions. Indeed, I have 5: 1) they are actually innocent and only came to the cottage in the morning. Any bizarre stuff was due to AK just being a kid, bizarre, quirkly, weird. She was stoned and did not give consistent details bc she had been doing the same stuff w RS for the past 7 nights and got confused; or 2) they came to the cottage that night after the murder, found the murder, went around touching stuff, was stoned or on hard drugs and were afraid to call police; or 3) they were there during the murder but past out or stoned; or 4) they were there during the murder, maybe they interrupted it, but somehow hid in the closet or whatever while it was going on; or 5) they interrupt the murder. RG realizes he cannot overpower both of them, so he decides not to kill them. But AK and RS are afraid so they do not affirmatively stop the murder but they just let RG finish up and then RG leaves. Or perhaps maybe they interrupt, they see RG and RG just flees, leaving poor MK to suffer. Instead of calling police, MK is still alive, but AK and RS are too stoned to help her.

The possibility of any of these scenarios - which I think is reasonable given the evidence - raises reasonable doubt

Or one can believe the alternative, that they either met up w RG and decided to go do drugs. They tried to get MK involved in drugs or sex but she refused. So they decided to kill her for thrills.

Or alternatively, RG broke in and was murdering MK. AK and RS decide to join in even though they do not know RG and they have no fear he will kill them. So they just decide to join in w RG and stab MK

What makes the bottom 2 scenarios any more plausible than the first 5? Why be so convinced that either of the bottom scenarios happened and not any of the top 5? Numbers 5 and 7 were ridiculous I think but sometimes these things are irrational.

I don't see how you could say definitely that murder is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Look even at the Casey case. I totally think she did it, but the jury believed that George was a shady character and the mere possibility that it was George who moved the body was sufficient to raise doubt. They had no physical evidence at the murder scene, the same thing as here. At least in CA you had a motive - here any motive is based on a bizarre fact pattern

If it was any of those cases, they would have cracked a long time ago. Not gone on with this charade of vehemently denying even being in the cottage. After all, they had Rudy to blame it on, if they were indeed in the cottage but didn't really participate in anything? Why would they take the risk of going to trial on murder charges and being convicted of murder?

 

[Yellow]

When is the court expected to rule?

 

[aa9511]

I think a reasonable scenario is that they could have been on drugs, came home to find the murder scene, did not call police bc of the drugs and that explains some of the weird actions.

That is enough to raise reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is all over this case. You can believe AK did it but it is hard to make a case that there is not a reasonable alternative explanation that explains their actions. Indeed, I have 5: 1) they are actually innocent and only came to the cottage in the morning. Any bizarre stuff was due to AK just being a kid, bizarre, quirkly, weird. She was stoned and did not give consistent details bc she had been doing the same stuff w RS for the past 7 nights and got confused; or 2) they came to the cottage that night after the murder, found the murder, went around touching stuff, was stoned or on hard drugs and were afraid to call police; or 3) they were there during the murder but past out or stoned; or 4) they were there during the murder, maybe they interrupted it, but somehow hid in the closet or whatever while it was going on; or 5) they interrupt the murder. RG realizes he cannot overpower both of them, so he decides not to kill them. But AK and RS are afraid so they do not affirmatively stop the murder but they just let RG finish up and then RG leaves. Or perhaps maybe they interrupt, they see RG and RG just flees, leaving poor MK to suffer. Instead of calling police, MK is still alive, but AK and RS are too stoned to help her.

The possibility of any of these scenarios - which I think is reasonable given the evidence - raises reasonable doubt

Or one can believe the alternative, that they either met up w RG and decided to go do drugs. They tried to get MK involved in drugs or sex but she refused. So they decided to kill her for thrills.

Or alternatively, RG broke in and was murdering MK. AK and RS decide to join in even though they do not know RG and they have no fear he will kill them. So they just decide to join in w RG and stab MK

What makes the bottom 2 scenarios any more plausible than the first 5? Why be so convinced that either of the bottom scenarios happened and not any of the top 5? Numbers 5 and 7 were ridiculous I think but sometimes these things are irrational.

I don't see how you could say definitely that murder is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Look even at the Casey case. I totally think she did it, but the jury believed that George was a shady character and the mere possibility that it was George who moved the body was sufficient to raise doubt. They had no physical evidence at the murder scene, the same thing as here. At least in CA you had a motive - here any motive is based on a bizarre fact pattern

If it was any of those cases, they would have cracked a long time ago. Not gone on with this charade of vehemently denying even being in the cottage. After all, they had Rudy to blame it on, if they were indeed in the cottage but didn't really participate in anything? Why would they take the risk of going to trial on murder charges and being convicted of murder?

 

[Yellow]

When is the court expected to rule?

 

[Myvice]

BBM now you know how I feel about the claim the bra clasp DNA is from contamination.

I don't think it's a leap that AK could've ran into RG in the piazza and set a "meet" without exchanging numbers.

It could be possible that all three had a drink at the piazza and someone spiked it. I had that happen to me in Vegas a couple years ago.

No one came forward to admit it though. I just knew. I had had a couple drinks but this was way beyond that. Had to go to my room in a wheelchair.

 

[Amber29]

When is the court expected to rule?

Early January