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

[otto]

Only that she was afraid. JMO

Knox felt afraid, so she had no choice but to continue living in Sollecito's flat rather than getting her own place, or staying with one of her alleged numerous girlfriends.

She was afraid, so after what she claimed were days and days, hours and hours of continuous harsh interrogation, she voluntarily went to the police station late on November 5, 2007, and told a whopper lie about Mr Lumumba. On November 6, she wrote that she stood behind her statements about Mr Lumumba. On November 7, she wrote that she did not lie when she told the whopper lie about Mr Lumumba.

It is suggested that she was so afraid after Meredith's murder on November 1, she waited until November 5 to tell Mr Lumumba that she could no longer work - because she was afraid. That same day, she voluntarily went to the police station. Two hours after catching investigator's attention with cartwheels, she signed a statement with the help of a translator in English accusing Mr Lumumba of murder. Two days later, on November 7, she stated that she did not lie in her statement about Mr Lumumba.

By then, people were beginning to feel afraid of her.

 

[otto]

If you want to focus on behaviour, think about Rudy Guede going dancing after raping and murdering a girl. That's behaviour!

<snipped for emphasis>

Sitting on laps, flirting, sticking out tongues, making faces at the police station, and flirting, teasing in the lingerie shop the following day, isn't much better. Guede was dancing until 6 AM. For all we know, Sollecito and Knox were flirting, teasing and sitting on laps all day on November 2, including their kissing and canoodling outside the cottage while police discovered the body.

 

[otto]

I've seen that Luca told her in the car a few times tonight but I still haven't seen where that's coming from. It would be so helpful if you could post a link. I'd not heard this before. TIA

I recall reading it in the transcripts. Knox's story is that even though she didn't speak Italian, and Sollecito didn't speak English, he translated everything Luca said. From that, Knox was able to understand that Meredith had been murdered near the closet and that she slowly bled to death. Both statements are true, but Meredith was moved after the murder, meaning she was no longer near the closet. The fact that she slowly bled to death was very insightful given that Meredith's body was mostly covered with a duvet. More impressive is that this complex discussion describing a murder scene was perfectly and accurately translated by Sollecito and understood by Knox.

Luca is the boyfriend of Filomina's friend. They are the couple that looked through their car after driving Knox and Sollecito to the police station to ensure that they left nothing behind.

ETA: If you search the transcripts, look for Luca ... including his last name, as there are a couple of Lucas.

 

[MichaelSmith]

I've seen that Luca told her in the car a few times tonight but I still haven't seen where that's coming from. It would be so helpful if you could post a link. I'd not heard this before. TIA

The car conversation comes from witness statements and was in the books by Follain, Dempsey and Burleigh.

 

[Yellow]

What it shows is that Knox was emotionally disconnected from Meredith. In my opinion, she did not demonstrate, or express, an emotional reaction that is common amongst those that have experienced the loss of a valued friend or companion.

Some people have tried to excuse this behavior by suggesting that Knox is immature. This would seem to imply that, due to immaturity, women under the age of 20 are normally incapable of expressing sadness at the loss of a valued companion. That can't be true, so immaturity does not explain this behavior.

As a creative writer, Knox wrote two stories about the forced suffering of a woman at the hands of two others. Some have suggested that normal, healthy 20 year olds are fixated with suffering and victimization because they play video games. It's a fact that video games do not inspire violent thoughts any more than *advertiser censored* inspries rape. Knox had those violent thoughts in her mind during her first year of University and she wrote about them. She wrote about them again in prison. Again, her work seems emotionally disconnected. In fact, it's so disconnected on every level that I can barely understand what she's trying to say.

Murder convictions without a murder weapon are common. There's no need to put a knife in Knox's hand. However, Meredith's DNA on the blade and Knox's DNA on the knife are sufficient to connect the knife to the murder to Knox. Two knives were used during the murder. One has not been found. The knife that Sollecito had with him on the night of his arrest is not one of the murder weapons. Sollecito was a knife collector, so it's possible that he used one from his collection. The second knife could be with the keys - lost.

Who sold a story to the tabloids?

What murder weapon used in a stabbing would not have blood on it? And why not match the wounds? Even if there was a second knife that knife would have matched some wounds. One does not even need to get to the story about the DNA until those two preliminary questions are answered. Even if you believe in a second knife, what makes that dna knife the murder weapon? Even if one chooses to rely on testing of low carbon DNA, why isn't it blood DNA? Isn't it true that when you stab someone blood oozes out and would get on the stabbing object? What happened to that blood on the knife? Did it just disappear? Was MK stabbed no yet no blood got on the stabbing object?was it cleaned yet not clean enough to show either evidence of bleach or wipe away the other low copy DNA?

And why wouldn't low copy DNA be all over that knife? In any event why rely on a DNA test that the scientific community discredits? It would be like relying on a lie detector evidence to support a murder conviction.

And you need a murder weapon where you cannot even place the defendant in the same room as the murder at anytime, let alone at the time of the murder and where you have no physical evidence showing murder and no motive.

Not sure where exactly money changed hands but many of these people were talking to the British and Italian tabloids in the weeks after the murder. Some may have done it for money, others for publicity, etc. for instance, I am sure foot traffic increased to the store AK supposedly bought her stuff at. There were reasons for people to get themselves involved in this case and one should consider those reasons in evaluating their credibility.

I also think witnesses faced alot of peer pressure from friends/family who were relying on the Italian tabloids for info and all of whom basically claimed AK was guilty in the weeks after the murder. Of course no one in Perigua would come out in her defense with that peer pressure.

 

[Myvice]

It wasn't the pathologist Luca Lalli who told them, it was Filomena's boyfriend, L A.

From the following link I can't find where Luca stated that he told Amanda what happened.

But from the testimony of Robin Butterworth it looks as though it wasn't the crime scene that she was describing. Amanda stated that she was killed by the wardrobe (which was later determined) instead of in the middle of the room where she was found.

Amanda was unable to explain how she knew these details.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...tieri_.26_Paola_Grande_vs_Michele_Battistelli

 

[otto]

What murder weapon used in a stabbing would not have blood on it? And why not match the wounds? One does not even need to get to the story about the DNA until those two preliminary questions are answered. Even if you believe in a second knife, what makes that dna knife the murder weapon? Even if one chooses to rely on testing of low carbon DNA, why isn't it blood DNA? Isn't it true that when you stab someone blood oozes out and would get on the stabbing object? What happened to that blood on the knife? Did it just disappear? Was MK stabbed no yet no blood got on the stabbing object?was it cleaned yet not clean enough to shore either evidence of bleach or the other DNA?

And why wouldn't low copy DNA be all over that knife? In any event why rely on a DNA test that the scientific community discredits? It would be like relying on a lie detector evidence to support a murder conviction.

And you need a murder weapon where you cannot even place the defendant in the same room as the murder at anytime, let alone at the time of the murder and where you have no physical evidence showing murder and no motive.

Not sure where exactly money changed hands but many of these people were talking to the British and Italian tabloids in the weeks after the murder. Some may have done it for money, others for publicity, etc. for instance, I am sure foot traffic increased to the store AK supposedly bought her stuff at. There were reasons for people to get themselves involved in this case and one should consider those reasons in evaluating their credibility.

The knife is significant in that Meredith's DNA was found in a grove on the blade. The amount of DNA on the knife was larger than the DNA that was recently attributed to Knox, so LCN isn't a good argument.

Other than this important fact, the knife is insignificant. Brad Cooper was convicted of murdering his wife and no murder weapon was produced. Same with Jason Young. Nothing except Meredith's DNA and the location of the knife are significant.

The latest test demonstrates that Knox handled the knife, per the prosecution theory. It was not Sollecito's DNA on his knife. Why wasn't Sollecito's DNA on his knife? It's like: Why wasn't Knox's DNA on her lamp?

 

[Myvice]

What murder weapon used in a stabbing would not have blood on it? And why not match the wounds? Even if there was a second knife that knife would have matched some wounds. One does not even need to get to the story about the DNA until those two preliminary questions are answered. Even if you believe in a second knife, what makes that dna knife the murder weapon? Even if one chooses to rely on testing of low carbon DNA, why isn't it blood DNA? Isn't it true that when you stab someone blood oozes out and would get on the stabbing object? What happened to that blood on the knife? Did it just disappear? Was MK stabbed no yet no blood got on the stabbing object?was it cleaned yet not clean enough to show either evidence of bleach or wipe away the other low copy DNA?

And why wouldn't low copy DNA be all over that knife? In any event why rely on a DNA test that the scientific community discredits? It would be like relying on a lie detector evidence to support a murder conviction.

And you need a murder weapon where you cannot even place the defendant in the same room as the murder at anytime, let alone at the time of the murder and where you have no physical evidence showing murder and no motive.

Not sure where exactly money changed hands but many of these people were talking to the British and Italian tabloids in the weeks after the murder. Some may have done it for money, others for publicity, etc. for instance, I am sure foot traffic increased to the store AK supposedly bought her stuff at. There were reasons for people to get themselves involved in this case and one should consider those reasons in evaluating their credibility.

There were numerous people in the states that got there name out there as well.

 

[Yellow]

The knife is significant in that Meredith's DNA was found in a grove on the blade. Other than this important fact, the knife is insignificant. Brad Cooper was convicted of murdering his wife and no murder weapon was produced. Same with Jason Young. Nothing except Meredith's DNA and the location of the knife are significant. The latest test demonstrates that Knox handled the knife, per the prosecution theory. It was not Sollecito's DNA on his knife.

Why isn't it blood? And it was low copy DNA which is not considered reliable by the scientific community. Why would one want a system that considers such things admissible? I might repeat - it is not blood

There should have been MK low copy DNA all over that knife. Why wasn't it there? The fact they found it only one place - using a discredited technique - raises the possibility that they just messed up.

And the possible murder weapon is "insignificant" in a largely circumstantial case?

There should have been blood regular DNA all over that knife; there wasn't. And it should have matched at least one wound.

RS might not have been on the knife bc maybe it was washed between when he used it and AK used it. Maybe it was a relatively new knife, I have knives in my drawer that I maybe personally did not recently handle every one, maybe other people did, but not me.

Of course you do not need to always prove the murder weapon. Look at scott Peterson, they never even proved a method of death. But all those cases were string circumstantial cases with a very strong motive. Unfortunately husbands kill wives every day. Roommates - with only some evidence of disagreements about cleaning a toilet - generally do not kill another roommates absent a sex, jealousy or revenge motive - of which no evidence was presented here. Other cases with weak physical evidence generally have a very clear motive.

W no real motive here you need the forensics - and they just cannot place AK and RS in that room.

 

[otto]

From the following link I can't find where Luca stated that he told Amanda what happened.

But from the testimony of Robin Butterworth it looks as though it wasn't the crime scene that she was describing. Amanda stated that she was killed by the wardrobe (which was later determined) instead of in the middle of the room where she was found.

Amanda was unable to explain how she knew these details.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...tieri_.26_Paola_Grande_vs_Michele_Battistelli

Good find! Exactly. Knox claimed that she understood from Sollecito's translation of Luca's description that Meredith was killed near the closet/wardrobe, which was true, but Meredith was moved and discovered in a different location. Knox said that Meredith bled to death, which was true, but was it that obvious when she was covered with a duvet? Knox said that she heard a scream, and the scream was confirmed by more than one witness.

There was a question as to whether Luca had been in the room when police lifted the duvet. The next question is whether Luca recalled providing that level of detail to Knox.

It was previously suggested on this forum that Knox overheard all of this when Luca was on the phone. Maybe that happened n the car.

 

[otto]

Why isn't it blood? And it was low copy DNA which is not considered reliable by the scientific community. Why would one want a system that considers such things admissible? I might repeat - it is not blood

There should have been MK low copy DNA all over that knife. Why wasn't it there? The fact they found it only one place - using a discredited technique - raises the possibility that they just messed up.

And the possible murder weapon is "insignificant" in a largely circumstantial case?

There should have been blood regular DNA all over that knife; there wasn't. And it should have matched at least one wound.

RS might not have been on the knife bc maybe it was washed between when he used it and AK used it. Maybe it was a relatively new knife, I have knives in my drawer that I maybe personally did not recently handle every one, maybe other people did, but not me.

Of course you do not need to always prove the murder weapon. Look at scott Peterson, they never even proved a method of death. But all those cases were string circumstantial cases with a very strong motive. Unfortunately husbands kill wives every day. Roommates - with only some evidence of disagreements about cleaning a toilet - generally do not kill another roommates absent a sex, jealousy or revenge motive - of which no evidence was presented here. Other cases with weak physical evidence generally have a very clear motive.

W no real motive here you need the forensics - and they just cannot place AK and RS in that room.

If Meredith's DNA in a grove on the blade of the knife is insignificant because it's LCN DNA, why was news that an even smaller DNA sample (lower copy number) that matched Knox meant that she was innocent? Apparently LCN DNA isn't a problem after all.

Bleach destroys blood, or DNA?

 

[aa9511]

His DNA samples are for his lawyers to argue. I have only looked at the egrams casually, but I don't recall seeing any low template samples. One difference between RG and AK is that Rudy had never been to the women's flat. Therefore even if all of the DNA were collected in a sloppy manner, it does not explain the presence of his DNA there. On the other hand poor choices in where to sample or sloppy technique can create a mixed DNA sample. That is one difference between Rudy's DNA and Amanda's DNA. In this respect RS falls in the middle. He did not live there, but he visited there.

The second difference is that the DNA evidence against Guede is just the icing on the cake. Let's exclude 100% of the DNA evidence against all three on the basis of bad technique of one kind or another, just for the sake of argument. If we do so, then Guede is still guilty BARD.

THe only reason it is okay for some to hypothetically "exclude Rudy DNA" is because it is already known that he did it. I doubt people would be so quick to toss out his DNA evidence if there was not that much other evidence that he left, as in what if he had attempted to do a clean-up afterwards and gotten rid of much else of the evidence against him? And so then the DNA would be a very important factor and would not be so "tossable." I have seen murder cases with stabbings in which they could find little to no perp DNA anywhere in the crime scene.

Secondly, I do not agree that "sloppiness" and poor choice of where to test somehow attritubed to Amanda's and RS's "false" mixed samples and DNA. If that was the case, then why isn't Amanda's DNA mixed in with Rudy's DNA????????? Does that not makes sense? That if Amanda's DNA was so prevalent all throughout the house, and because of sloppiness and or/her prevalence of DNA, the mixed samples resulted with Amanda's DNA in it, then it would make sense that her DNA would be mixed with Rudy's, too. How come her DNA is only mixed with that of the victim, Meredith? How come Rudy's DNA is only mixed with that of the victim, Meredith? If there was a "blanket" so to speak of Amanda's DNA apparently covering the entire flat, then it would be logical that some of Rudy's DNA would have fallen on top of Amanda's DNA, creating a mixed sample.

There are no problems with Rudy's DNA samples. And there are no problem with Amanda's or RS's DNA samples, either, IMO.

 

[aa9511]

Many false confessors also accuse innocent men. This is true of Karl Fontenot. It is also true of one or more of the navy men in the Norfolk Four case.

IIRC Patrick said or implied that business was slow in his text message, not that there was literally no one in his place. Therefore, Amanda would have every reason to think that Patrick would have an alibi (or at least know that this was possible). If a hypothetically guilty Amanda were worried about taking the fall, she should have named either Rudy or Raffaele. They are men and therefore it does not require great mental gyrations to think that they could have sexually assaulted Meredith. Amanda could claim that one of them (or perhaps both) were guilty and forced her participation. On the other hand, a hypothetically innocent Amanda might well accuse Patrick with the...encouragement...of overzealous police officers. Having a tape of the interrogation would be helpful.

Ah, the problem is Rudy or Raffaelo could have spilled the beans on her. Patrick couldn't. Patrick had no idea what had happened, and she knew that.

 

[otto]

Regarding the question of secondary transfer resulting in Meredith's DNA on Sollecito's knife let's think about it for a minute. Dirty gloves were not worn between the cottage and Sollecito's apartment. Dirty gloves did not transfer Meredth's DNA from the cottage to Sollecito's apartment. The question of whether contamination occurred in the lab was answered as "no" because there were eight days between testing.

How did Meredith's DNA get on Sollecito's knife? We're still waiting for an explanation. That is what Conti and Vechiotti could not answer. They tried to float the argument that "anything is possible".

Everything has been empirically ruled out, so how did the contamination occur. It couldn't be dirty gloves, as they were changed between locations. It couldn't be in the lab because the evidence was tested eight days apart. Where did the contamination occur?

LCN DNA is apparently no longer a point of contention for the defense because a smaller sample belonging to Knox has been readily accepted.

 

[aa9511]

I get the impression that we should now view a false confession as the same as a false accusation. It would then be easier to put Knox in the context of people that had a false confession beaten out of them.

False accusations are distinctly different from false confessions.

Accusation: claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong
Confession: a formal statement admitting that one is guilty of a crime

See the difference? Accusations relate to someone else. For example, when the cookie jar is empty, the child that ate the cookies will sometimes accuse another child in order to avoid punishment. Confessions relate to the self. For example, Austin Sigg confessed that he murdered Jessica Ridgeway after he was required to provide a DNA sample. There is a big difference.

Knox did not confess to anything. Approximately one hour after voluntarily going to the police station, Knox accused Mr Lumumba of murder in a detailed statement where she described meeting him at the basketball courts and so on. She has mentioned her interest in CSI, and she probably thought that by implicating another person, she would be released. She knew that her mother was arriving the following morning and she most likely thought that she would be on her way to Germany in no time. Reality is that she overlooked the small detail that making a false accusation where she claimed that she too was at the scene of the murder would change her status from witness to suspect.

She wrote a couple of follow up letters on November 6 & 7, where she attempted to distance herself from the murder, but she did not admit to lying about Patrick.

:winner:

 

[aa9511]

Possibly you are thinking of her first memoriale (6 November), but she sounds muddled to me. The key passage of her second memoriale is in the trial transcripts and in Follain's book. It absolutely does not affirm her accusation of Lumumba; it withdraws it. If you want to read it, I suggest obtaining her book from the library. The issue of whether or not she lied or was coerced when she named Lumumba (although an interesting discussion in its own right) is not germane to the point at hand, namely that she withdrew the accusation within about 36 hours. Her letter to her lawyers is available, thanks to Andrea Vogt.

It didn't seem to me that she "withdrew" it at all....seems to me she went back to her "confused" state in which she conveniently couldn't remember anything, so that when something came up which went against her, she could strike that down, and when something came up which supported her, she could accept that. The "neutral" position, and it has worked well for her. Whereby she could, in a sense, invent any story which suited her based on picking and choosing which things the prosecution presented she could keep, and which she could discard.

After falsely accusing Patrick, she probably went back and thought about it, and thought, "oh crap," now if they find out I'm lying, I'm really done for. Okay, let me change my position to where I'm not really accusing him, but not really denying accusing him either. That way, if they find out I'm lying, I can say "but I never accused him, remember?" And if they can't find out I'm lying, then they have to consider him a suspect. And in the meantime, I can come up with a story to to support the fact that "he did it."

 

[aa9511]

Second memoriale Nov 7, 2007

Oh my God! I’m freaking out a bit now because I talked to a nun and I finally remember. It can’t be a coincidence. I remember what I was doing with Raffaele at the time of the murder of my friend! We are both innocent! This is why: After dinner Raffaele began washing the dishes in the kitchen and I was giving him a back massage while he was doing it. It’s something we do for one another when someone is cleaning dishes, because it makes cleaning better. I remember now that it was AFTER dinner that we smoked marijuana and while we smoked I began by saying that he shouldn’t worry about the sink. He was upset because the sink was broken but it was new and I told him to not worry about it because it was only a little bad thing that had happened, and that little bad things are nothing to worry about. We began to talk more about what kind of people we were. We talked about how I’m more easy-going and less organized than he is, and how he is very organized because of the time he spent in Germany. It was during this conversation that Raffaele told me about his past. How he had a horrible experience with drugs and alcohol. He told me that he drove his friends to a concert and that they were using cocaine, marijuana, he was drinking rum, and how, after the concert, when he was driving his passed-out friends home, how he had realized what a bad thing he had done and had decided to change. He told me about how in the past he dyed his hair yellow and another time when he was young had cut designs in his hair. He used to wear earrings. He did this because when he was young he played video games and watched Sailor Moon, a Japanese girl cartoon, and so he wasn’t a popular kid at school. People made fun of him. I told him about how in high school I had been unpopular as well, because the people in my school thought I was a lesbian. We talked about his friends, how they hadn’t changed from drug-using video game players, and how he was sad for them. We talked about his mother, how she had died and how he felt guilty because he had left her alone before she died. He told me that before she died she told him she wanted to die because she was alone and had nothing to live for. I told Raffaele that wasn’t his fault that his mother was depressed and wanted to die. I told him he did the right thing by going to school. I told him that life is full of choices, and those choices aren’t necessarily between good and bad. There are options between what is best and what is not, and all we have to do is do what we think is best. I told him that mistakes teach us to be better people, and so he shouldn’t feel nervous about going to Milan to study, because he felt he needed to be nearer to his friends who hadn’t changed and he felt needed him. But I told him he had to be true to himself. It was a very long conversation but it did happen and it must have happened at the time of Meredith’s murder, so to clarify, this is what happened. Around five in the evening Raffaele and I returned to his place to get comfortable. I checked my email on his computer for a while and then afterward I read a little Harry Potter to him in German. We watched Amelie and afterward we kissed for a little while. I told him about how I really liked this movie and how my friends thought I was similar to Amelie because I’m a bit of a weirdo, in that I like random little things, like birds singing, and these little things make me happy. I don’t remember if we had sex. Raffaele made dinner and I watched him and we stayed together in the kitchen while dinner was cooking. After dinner Raffaele cleaned the dishes and this is when the pipes below came loose and flooded the kitchen floor with water. He was upset, but I told him we could clean it up tomorrow when I brought back a mop from my house. He put a few small towels over the water to soak up a little and then he threw them into the sink. I asked him what would make him feel better and he said he would like to smoke some hash. I received a message from my boss about how I didn’t have to come into work and I sent him a message back with the words: “Ci vediamo. Buona serata.” While Raffaele rolled the joint I laid in bed quietly watching him. He asked me what I was thinking about and I told him I thought we were very different kinds of people. And so our conversation began, which I have already written about. After our conversation I know we stayed in bed together for a long time. We had sex and then afterward we played our game of looking at each other and making faces. After this period of time we fell asleep and I didn’t wake up until Friday morning. This is what happened and I could swear by it. I’m sorry I didn’t remember before and I’m sorry I said I could have been at the house when it happened. I said these things because I was confused and scared. I didn’t lie when I said I thought the killer was Patrick. I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. But now I remember that I can’t know who the murderer was because I didn’t return back to the house.
I know the police will not be happy about this, but it’s the truth and I don’t know why my boyfriend told lies about me, but I think he is scared and doesn’t remember well either. But this is what it is, this is what I remember.

Knox, Amanda (2013-04-30). Waiting to Be Heard: A Memoir (p. 159). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

But now I remember that I can’t know who the murderer was because I didn’t return back to the house

Oh, really, Amanda? You just now figured that out? You just now figured out that you can't be a witness to something you didn't see?

It is so obvious that she's lying and trying to cover her bases. I am not even going to pretend that there is an ounce of truth in any of that self-serving garbage.

 

[otto]

It didn't seem to me that she "withdrew" it at all....seems to me she went back to her "confused" state in which she conveniently couldn't remember anything, so that when something came up which went against her, she could strike that down, and when something came up which supported her, she could accept that. The "neutral" position, and it has worked well for her. Whereby she could, in a sense, invent any story which suited her based on picking and choosing which things the prosecution presented she could keep, and which she could discard.

After falsely accusing Patrick, she probably went back and thought about it, and thought, "oh crap," now if they find out I'm lying, I'm really done for. Okay, let me change my position to where I'm not really accusing him, but not really denying accusing him either. That way, if they find out I'm lying, I can say "but I never accused him, remember?" And if they can't find out I'm lying, then they have to consider him a suspect. And in the meantime, I can come up with a story to to support the fact that "he did it."

Statements where she mentions Patrick are that on November 5 she gave evidence that she knew that Patrick murdered Meredith, on November 6, she gave a signed statement to that effect. After her status was changed from witness to suspect, on November 6, she wrote that she "stood behind her statement about Patrick" and on November 7, she wrote that she "did not lie" in her statement about Patrick. On November 10, she told her mother that she lied in her statement about Patrick.

Knox definitely tried to neutralize her statements about Patrick in her two letters from prison, but it appears that she wanted to keep the Patrick option open ... perhaps hoping that Patrick had no alibi (she knew that the bar was empty that night), perhaps hoping that her letters of spinny "I'm confused by my own imaginings" would be a get out of jail free key. She wasn't prepared to put in writing that she told a whopper lie about Patrick, but she wanted to make the statement fuzzy, ambiguous and confusing enough that she might soon be released. She probably thought that she could sort Patrick out later, from Germany or Seattle.

When that didn't work, she confessed the lie to her mother, perhaps realizing that the Patrick story wasn't panning out. Believe it or not, her mother didn't say anything to authorities either. It was days before the Professor from Germany returned to Italy to give a statement that he closed the bar down with Patrick on the night of the murder, a full two weeks after Knox first accused Patrick of murder. At no time did she volunteer information about the lie other than to her mother.

 

[aa9511]

Yes - I always felt there were indications of that (trauma which needed to be digested and recovered from). I think the police jumped on those 2 too soon and too aggressively. .... On the other hand, there are also indicators of something amiss. Maybe it is not a black or white thing; maybe they were unintentional instigators and then did a simulation from paranoia or an over-acceptance of blame. This is a very strange case; one of the strangest I have ever encountered. I still don't know where I firmly stand, but I know I cannot commit to either/or , to either camp wholly. Maybe this is how Knox and Sollecito themselves felt---like they were in a grey zone....

Yes, the trauma of being involved in the murdering of someone, and the subsequent trauma of realizing you might be caught!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[aa9511]

The fibers on the body is not the same as the hair in the hand. It is unbelievable that they lost it, but apparently that is what happened.

Thank you! That did not look like wool to me. That looked very clearly in the pic like a blonde hair.