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

[otto]

Assume Raffaele is evil, therefore anyone associated with Raffaele is a liar, therefore Raffaele is guilty of murder, proving that Raffaele is evil.

Circular logic like this seems to be a key part of so many conspiracy theories.

I think it's more straight forward than that. Sollecito is an admitted liar, but being a liar does not mean that he is a murderer.

 

[TorisMom003]

Why is anything that Guede said or claimed being believed? After all it was his DNA and prints found all over the murder room. Wouldn't he lie to make himself not be the lone killer?

 

[Amber29]

Assume Raffaele is evil, therefore anyone associated with Raffaele is a liar, therefore Raffaele is guilty of murder, proving that Raffaele is evil.

Circular logic like this seems to be a key part of so many conspiracy theories.

Why not any witness that has spoke negative of the defendants or proven them as liars have been deemed liars or just not credible.

So why can the same logic not be used about JP?

 

[Amber29]

Why is anything that Guede said or claimed being believed? After all it was his DNA and prints found all over the murder room. Wouldn't he lie to make himself not be the lone killer?

Sure RG is a liar that is fact. It is people who think they are innocent who want to hang onto his words.

He's some how credible depending on what he's saying.

 

[SMK]

That's been answered. Read Follain, Dempsey or Burleigh where the conversation in the car is reconstructed. Luca told them on the way to the police station how Meredith died after over hearing Bastelli call the police.

I just read Follain and I am ready to spit. Why didn't someone inform Galati that the forensic pathologist told Knox and Sollecito details of the crime? How could he be in the dark about this 6 years later? And what was wrong with Luca to blab this way????

 

[otto]

Sure RG is a liar that is fact. It is people who think they are innocent who want to hang onto his words.

He's some how credible depending on what he's saying.

Of the friends, associates, roommates and University contacts that Meredith had, excluding Guede, Knox and Sollecito, they all told the truth. Guede, Knox and Sollecito repeatedly told self serving lies. Nothing any of them say today can be believed, however in the midst of every sack of lies, there is an element of truth. Coincidentally, there is evidence of all three liars all over the crime scene.

 

[otto]

Why is anything that Guede said or claimed being believed? After all it was his DNA and prints found all over the murder room. Wouldn't he lie to make himself not be the lone killer?

That's true. There is evidence of Guede throughout the crime scene. Similarly, there is evidence of Knox throughout the crime scene. There is less evidence of Sollecito throughout the crime scene, but there is evidence. Why wouldn't they all lie to distance themselves from the murder? In fact, that's exactly what they did. Each told multiple lies and imaginary versions of their activities on the night of the murder in order to distance themselves from the murder. They were repeatedly caught in their lies. Both Knox and Sollecito told so many lies that they simply had to admit that they told outrageous lies.

 

[aa9511]

Assume Raffaele is evil, therefore anyone associated with Raffaele is a liar, therefore Raffaele is guilty of murder, proving that Raffaele is evil.

Circular logic like this seems to be a key part of so many conspiracy theories.

Assume Amanda is innocent, therefore everyone involved in the investigation and charging is lying (prosecutors, judges, evidence-collectors, postal police, lab technicians, DNA experts, forensic experts, translators, Cabinieri, witnesses such as roomates (they either didn't understand her or they were biased against her), other witnesses are liars (such as neighbors who heard the screams), therefore proving Amanda is innocent.

 

[Yellow]

I don't think it is necessary to demonstrate how contamination occurred, but rather to present at least one viable scenario where it could have occurred. This is where Conti and Vechiotti failed. In each scenario they imagined, it was demonstrated that contamination could not have occurred. The conclusion is that Conti and Vechiotti admitted that there was no realistic scenario where contamination could have occurred.

It was presented in court the video of how dirty the evidence gathering was. At one point, the people in the court actually laughed because it was so silly. You could see dirt over the gloves and the gloves were not changed. Anyone watching that video and seeing those pictures would surely see that contamination is a possibility. RS could have touched the doorknob, they were touching it without changing gloves, and then it gets contaminated. The low copy DNA contamination is a little more problematic, but I don't think that needs any contamination explanation bc it is simply not blood and is or irrelevant.

The conclusion of the independent experts was that stuff could have been contaminated and it was clearly discusses in court the above scenario.the appellate judge before believed it.

I also don't see what the DNA proves. DNA on the bra clasp does not prove murder by AK at all, nor does it even prove it by RS. DNA on the knife proves nothing either - especially bc it was not blood

Is there any reason why that knife would not be rolling in MK's blood DNA or that the marks would not match the cuts in the body? That seemed like detective 101 to me that the knife marks have to match without debate.

 

[Yellow]

That's true. There is evidence of Guede throughout the crime scene. Similarly, there is evidence of Knox throughout the crime scene. There is less evidence of Sollecito throughout the crime scene, but there is evidence. Why wouldn't they all lie to distance themselves from the murder? In fact, that's exactly what they did. Each told multiple lies and imaginary versions of their activities on the night of the murder in order to distance themselves from the murder. They were repeatedly caught in their lies. Both Knox and Sollecito told so many lies that they simply had to admit that they told outrageous lies.

There is no evidence or DNA of AK or RS in the murder room. No evidence they were even there. If someone can explain that scenario that does not involve them hopping on 1 foot while competing a murder that would be great

Why only RG's bloody footprints? Even a lay examiner can compare the boot prints - the toe is RG bc it is a fat toe whereas RS was more lean.

 

[Yellow]

Assume Amanda is innocent, therefore everyone involved in the investigation and charging is lying (prosecutors, judges, evidence-collectors, postal police, lab technicians, DNA experts, forensic experts, translators, Cabinieri, witnesses such as roomates (they either didn't understand her or they were biased against her), other witnesses are liars (such as neighbors who heard the screams), therefore proving Amanda is innocent.

No, I would not venture to accuse innocent people of lying. I think some people saw the exact same evidence differently, interpreted her actions differently than others. For others, I think it was just sloppy work, failing to cross the ts on everything. For others, some may be telling the compete truth and some of AK's words were a little bizarre. for still others, I think they were looking for things against AK and innocent things like buying underwear were blown out of proportion. For still others, it could be they were confused - they themselves may not remember the events of that day and are -without meaning to - giving wrong info. For still others, perhaps quiet people, they might have joined on the prosecution bandwagon perhaps they themselves were bullied to get in line- maybe they feared themselves being subject to the prosecutor for this or other crimes or being accused of perjury if they changed their tale. Or maybe they did not remember and felt that maybe the prosecution is saying the correct thing and so they go along w the prosecution even though they are not completely sure. For others, they may be telling part of the story - perhaps there is a clarifying detail but the prosecution does not ask them the question to bring that detail out. Still others have swayed to the prosecution side and lied and embellished so as to get money or publicity in the tabloids. For still others, maybe they felt that if they came on AK side they would be ridiculed by their friends or family so they just went along with the prosecution or kept it vague. Any lower level working in the Italian justice system was not going to risk their job to help out AK - if the boss thought AK did it they had a duty to present that case. Finally some of it could be translation issues. I would not want to be only 2 months in country in a foreign lanaguage and have my words subject to scrutiny. It could also be translation issues with how she is. I think she appears cold (not warm and bubbly) and her personality hurt her, maybe attempts at dark humor came across the wrong way.

And I might add, I think alot of this occurs in all cases, not just this one.this case was just different bc I think you had more people who had friends or family with strong views of AK's guilt based on the tabloid reports. I think for alot of people to stand up for AK they would have been vilified. Even the American press at that time made it out to be that sex story as fact. I can recall the day I first heard about it on one of the morning shows where they almost reported as fact the story of a sex orgy gone wrong.

 

[otto]

There is no evidence or DNA of AK or RS in the murder room. No evidence they were even there. If someone can explain that scenario that does not involve them hopping on 1 foot while competing a murder that would be great

Why only RG's bloody footprints? Even a lay examiner can compare the boot prints - the toe is RG bc it is a fat toe whereas RS was more lean.

I mentioned the crime scene. There is evidence of all three liars all over the crime scene. There is evidence of Guede from the exterior door to Meredith's bedroom and the large bathroom. There is evidence of Knox in the small bathroom, the hallway and Filomina's bedroom. There is evidence of Sollecito in the small bathroom and Meredith's bedroom. In fact, there is evidence of all three throughout the crime scene.

Why would we want to restrict the perimeter of the scene of the murder to a few feet on either side of the victim's body when there is crucial evidence throughout the crime scene? That is, what is the purpose of redefining and reducing the perimeter of the crime scene? Should Guede's footprints and feces be excluded and, if so, why? Should the broken window be excluded and, if so, why?

ETA: in fact, it seems that by eliminating the evidence of the broken window, we are left with no alternative but to conclude that the murderer entered the cottage with a key: Knox

 

[Yellow]

I mentioned the crime scene. There is evidence of all three liars all over the crime scene. There is evidence of Guede from the exterior door to Meredith's bedroom and the large bathroom. There is evidence of Knox in the small bathroom, the hallway and Filomina's bedroom. There is evidence of Sollecito in the small bathroom and Meredith's bedroom. In fact, there is evidence of all three throughout the crime scene.

Why would we want to restrict the perimeter of the scene of the murder to a few feet on either side of the victim's body when there is crucial evidence throughout the crime scene? That is, what is the purpose of redefining and reducing the perimeter of the crime scene? Should Guede's footprints and feces be excluded and, if so, why? Should the broken window be excluded and, if so, why?

ETA: in fact, it seems that by eliminating the evidence of the broken window, we are left with no alternative but to conclude that the murderer entered the cottage with a key: Knox

No I am no saying that all the evidence in the cottage should be eliminated. It should all be used. But I think you also need to show evidence of AK and RS in the murder room - why aren't they in there? How could you stab someone yet leave no evidence in the murder room? Why is Rudy all over that room?

As for evidence in the rest if the house, of course AK and RS would be in the rest of the house - they were in the house.

Why only Rudy Bloody footprints? Where are AK and RS? Luminal only showed DNA not blood. If it was blood, they would have been able to tell that.

Any evidence of AK in that house is consistent w her living there.

Again, why is AK and RS evidence not in that room? Were they standing in the hallway and have a 5 foot knife they used to stab someone in another room? Why isn't their DNA and footprints all over the murder room, on MK clothes, on her body, on her bag, just like RG?

And how would AK know that it is modus operandi for RG to throw rocks just as he had a few days before? RG threw that rock in

Moreover, there was testimony that the lock was loose, someone easily could also have just walked in that front door too.

I could see where someone could paint a scenario of guilt but there are multiple scenarios of non guilt and that raises serious questions of reasonable doubt.

Why isn't their DNA all over that crime scene including the murder room? I find I ask the same questions over and over again for days but no one ever wants to answer those questions, about this and about how that knife could be the murder weapon yet have no blood on it and not match the wounds.

 

[Nova]

No, it is not comparable. But it illustrates an irrational murder (lacking a rational motive, such as life insurance money).

But there WAS a motive (albeit a crazy one) in the other case. The killers wanted to exile the victim from their circle of friends. I'll grant you that isn't a reason you or I would kill someone (but then I can't imagine either of us killing except in self-defense), but it was obviously a reason that made sense to the killers at the time.

I'll say it again: crazy killers have motives, too; they just have crazy motives.

 

[Nova]

[/B]

bbm

To find those reasons means we have to go into the killer's mind and be able to think what they were thinking at the time. And we would have to, essentially, become the killer in order to adopt his/her world view and values and way he views things and his moral compass and his psychology.

No thanks, I'd rather look at the evidence to decide rather than try to rationalize the reasons for why they did what they did.

I hear you. But then we're back to a murder scene with zero evidence of AK's participation in the murder and almost no evidence of RS.

It's the lack of credible forensics that makes motive an issue in this case.

 

[Nova]

For me it relates in that motive can be pretty ridiculous.

And when people can describe the scene of the crime it becomes obvious for me that they have seen it. I can't get past that. There can be no explanation for it. She was speaking English at the time.

In the Jodi Arias case, her flat affect, lying, loss of memory and inappropriate behaviour were heavily used as evidence of her borderline personality disorder.

It was her young innocent looks that saved her from the DP.

BBM: her description of the scene is only suspect because others say she never saw it after the door was forced.

HOWEVER:

Who knows what she was told by those who did see the scene? I can't believe everyone assembled gazed on MK's body in silence, so who knows what AK overheard?

In the horror of discovering MK's body, it is highly unlikely that anyone was keeping track of AK's movement. So I don't put any faith in the testimony that she never saw the inside of the room.

And that doesn't even begin to deal with what LE may have leaked to her during her various interrogations.

This sort of "only the killer could have known" evidence is regularly shown to be based on hasty and false assumptions by LE. (See WM3, for example.)

 

[Yellow]

The problem is, the details Amanda would have given might have been backed up by forensic evidence, or could be that people just believed her. I'm sure there are things which, if told how the crime played out, investigators could go back and find pieces of evidence and clues that they missed. Missing pieces of the puzzle, if you will. And then RS actually has MORE evidence against him, which would be backed up by a witness account. Double whammy.

Wouldn't matter. Prosecution cannot renege on a deal. They could not charge him with anything else. He would have already pleaded to whatever offense and taken time served or whatever.

Also, RS could have done a deal a year or two in, after almost all of the evidence was gathered.

All RS had to say was we were there, I hid on the hallways, I saw her stab. That would be eyewitnesses testimony that would put RS against AK. There would be no evidence proving either account against eyewitness.

Moreover, thousands upon thousands of people take deals every day. Why would they ever do that if it could hurt theM? Bc it cannot otherwise no one ever would take a deal, I think 98% of cases end up w plea bargain and I would venture to guess that in most cases of multiple defendants, usually one always turns. There was recently a case on 48 hours with identical twins. One twin 10 years later ratted on his brother, minimizing his own involvement. Of course, his brother then blamed the snitch brother but no one believed in

The prosecution would have been thrilled if RS turned on AK. It would have given them a case instead of what they put up.

 

[Nova]

Just a case in point in terms of direct forensic evidence vs circumstantial :

There was the case here of a man who was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of his wife (Texas v David Temple).
This case had:

No DNA evidence
No fingerprint evidence
No ballistic evidence
No witnesses
No confession

All there was was:
a burglary which seemed staged (apparent forced entry looked staged)
a husband who had a girlfriend

But he was convicted, and the conviction was upheld on appeal.

So the circumstantial evidence overrode the weakness of the direct evidence (there was none).

With respect, there is no such thing as "direct forensic evidence". All forensic evidence is circumstantial, i.e., its meaning and relevance must be inferred.

Even something as apparently obvious as a fingerprint requires the trier of fact (the jury) to infer that the owner of the finger must have been present to leave the print.

"Direct evidence" is mostly eyewitness testimony or (I suppose) photographic records.

I know this is confusing because talking heads on TV so often use the terms incorrectly. They commonly use "circumstantial" to mean "weak evidence" and "direct" to mean "strong evidence"; when in fact, the truth is often the opposite.

 

[otto]

Wouldn't matter. Prosecution cannot renege on a deal. They could not charge him with anything else. He would have already pleaded to whatever offense and taken time served or whatever.

Also, RS could have done a deal a year or two in, after almost all of the evidence was gathered.

All RS had to say was we were there, I hid on the hallways, I saw her stab. That would be eyewitnesses testimony that would put RS against AK. There would be no evidence proving either account against eyewitness.

Moreover, thousands upon thousands of people take deals every day. Why would they ever do that if it could hurt theM? Bc it cannot otherwise no one ever would take a deal, I think 98% of cases end up w plea bargain and I would venture to guess that in most cases of multiple defendants, usually one always turns. There was recently a case on 48 hours with identical twins. One twin 10 years later ratted on his brother, minimizing his own involvement. Of course, his brother then blamed the snitch brother but no one believed in

The prosecution would have been thrilled if RS turned on AK. It would have given them a case instead of what they put up.

I don't understand what you mean by "deal". The Italian legal system does not include the concept of "plea deals". There are no deals. There are two options: fast track trial, regular trial. Guede chose fast track, Knox and Sollecito chose regular trial.

 

[SMK]

But there WAS a motive (albeit a crazy one) in the other case. The killers wanted to exile the victim from their circle of friends. I'll grant you that isn't a reason you or I would kill someone (but then I can't imagine either of us killing except in self-defense), but it was obviously a reason that made sense to the killers at the time.

I'll say it again: crazy killers have motives, too; they just have crazy motives.

True, but then you must take into consideration the crazy motives people attribute to Amanda:

Jealousy of Kercher over her refinement and "stealing" her LeChic job, wanting to push boundaries, looking for a thrill, wanting to humiliate Kercher and be "the Queen Bee", etc. They believe Amanda had strong and insane motive to want to prank/haze Meredith. (which escalated to murder)