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

[Yellow]

Yellow I'm sorry it seems people who find her guilty have listed the evidence repeatedly. For me the evidence as a WHOLE paints a clear picture beyond a reasonable doubt.
You have doubts that I don't share. Please don't lump us into a whole that don't want to answer questions. I can't think of a question you have asked that hasn't been answered by someone.

Moreover, I was also referring to the question asked before by someone asking for both sides to state their doubts about their own position, to see the case as the other side sees it.

So far no pro guilty people have done that, I was just pointing that out.

And it is not correct that all of my questions were answered

 

[aa9511]

Pretty weak piece of evidence to place in the "guilty" column, imo.

"weak piece of evidence" -- yes, how many times have I heard that about virtually every piece of evidence in this case. Problem is, each individual piece of "weak evidence' piled top of another piece of "weak evidence," piled on another and another and another and another......eventually becomes a mountain. I know, people will say it's a "weak mountain," but a mountain nonetheless!!

 

[Myvice]

So far it is only two Pro innocent people even answering the question.

I don't think anyone on either side of this case can see every single piece of evidence supporting their side without any trace of reasonable doubt. Pro guilt may think on the whole it shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but I would suspect that most would think at least some single pieces of evidence are subject to doubt or multiple possible interpretations.

And for pro innocence, one can make out a scenario of guilt especially if you uses her statement. But getting to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is another matter.

How do you get beyond her knowing how the crime happened? How did she know that she was killed by the wardrobe and then moved? Luca couldn't have told her that because the investigators didn't even know yet.

When asked in court she couldn't explain it.

Where would you find reasonable doubt there?

 

[Yellow]

True. Personally, I rarely post links at all (as everyone probably knows), and don't go a lot to either pro-guilt or pro-innocence sites. But when something they say is clearly true, then.....? For example, here they said Colleen Barry wrote a falsehood and a misleading article, which is the truth. She completely took the appeal out-of-context and it serves to mislead a lot of "regular" citizens who don't know much about the case and read something like that. I have seen this countless times.

It is opinion that an article in the mainstream press is false and misleading. Once one piece is let in, that gets to be a slippery slope especially when the source pf the critique has an obvious slant. Can any website critiquing any news story in the main stream press be allowed to be posted? One can critique the article without posting to the site.

I noticed this alot this last week, with people citing to the 2 pro guilt websites everyone knows about as well as the 1 pro innocent ones. I am not sure what the exact rules are

 

[Sigh Sister]

Yes, that there isn't more signs of Amanda and RS in the murder room, such as more DNA or footprints or other evidence. But there are several theories I have....first of all, they had time to clean up after the murder. Second, I have seen other stabbing cases where there was little or no perp DNA left near the body or in the crime scene for that matter. Usually this is the case when it's either pre-planned, or when the perp has time to clean up afterwards. Third, yes, the investigators/evidence-gatherers could have made mistakes.....but I have a different take on those "mistakes".....that they probably missed a lot of crucial information/evidence. I think there was a lot more evidence of RS and Amanda in that room, and the investigators just didn't see it, didn't gather it, and thus didn't test it. Example A would be the hair in Meredith's hand. They can only gather information from what they collect to test. There was probably a lot more DNA/evidence in that room, as well as in the bathroom, hallway, Filomena's room, which they failed to notice, thus failed to collect and test. MOO.

So that's my answer.

So short answer is no? The only evidence that causes you a moments hesitation is lack of more evidence?

 

[Amber29]

<modsnip> Do people think it was cleaned and if so how could you clean it and still leave the DNA (low copy)? Do people think that we should use low copy DNA testing as evidence? Or do people not believe the knife is the murder weapon but they still think the other evidence is strong enough to convict so they don't even care about the knife?

I replied to you earlier that the prosecutors say the knife matches one of the neck wounds and also that the wounds coming from both the left and the right.

Personally I don't need the knife to the assume guilt. IMO the evidence as a whole points to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Singling out the evidence and explaining it away is why Hellmann was annulled.

 

[Myvice]

I guess I don't understand why a book written by someone with a slant would be any different than those websites. They are all just providing a different perspective. JMO

And I'm not sure of the rules because I'm pretty new here. Any one know?

 

[Amber29]

Just a question, why are we allowed to cite to clearly pro guilt websites (and likewise I have also seen pro innocent ones too?) I could see citing to court documents on such sites, but I thought we were not allowed to cite to blogs. It seems like people throw around comments on those sites (on both sides I might add) as facts as opposed to stating that what those sites report is merely opinion?

I think the rule is we can post a link to these sites. We can not quote verbatim from them. As everyone can read what they want and decide what to believe. These sites (both guilty/innocent) do post the trial evidence and transcripts though and many use them as reference to the actual evidence and not just the opinion pieces/posts.

 

[Sigh Sister]

How do you get beyond her knowing how the crime happened? How did she know that she was killed by the wardrobe and then moved? Luca couldn't have told her that because the investigators didn't even know yet.

When asked in court she couldn't explain it.

Where would you find reasonable doubt there?

I thought she said Meredith was IN the wardrobe which is wrong. I just read it this am and now I can't find it again. I believe it was a court document. I will keep looking for it which will take me awhile because my laptop just died and I have to use my iPad.

 

[Yellow]

How do you get beyond her knowing how the crime happened? How did she know that she was killed by the wardrobe and then moved? Luca couldn't have told her that because the investigators didn't even know yet.

When asked in court she couldn't explain it.

Where would you find reasonable doubt there?

The defense does not need to answer every question but the prosecution needs to prove guilt

Who knows what was said in the confusion? Who knows what she overheard? How do we know what she saw? Or maybe even guessed?

Moreover, maybe there is a scenario where she came home to the cottage after the murder and saw the murder scene, she's lying about coming home and seeing it but she did not commit the murder

Either possibility is an equally plausible explanation. Indeed, it does not even need to be equally plausible. Maybe for pro guilty they view that evidence as the most likely scenario. But a possible and not unreasonable scenario is either one of the other situations.

 

[SMK]

I guess I don't understand why a book written by someone with a slant would be any different than those websites. They are all just providing a different perspective. JMO

And I'm not sure of the rules because I'm pretty new here. Any one know?

I never am sure either. To me, if you quote and provide a link, it should all be the same. Yes, there have really been no objective books written about the Kercher case. Every one I know is either pro-innocence (Dempsey, Fisher, Burleigh) or pro-guilt (Nadeau, Follain, et al). TJMK is decidedly pro-guilt. IIP is a pro-innocence advocate site. I have quoted and linked all these sources. JREF has been linked and it is pro-innocence. I think all can be cited depending on what one wants to argue.

 

[Yellow]

I replied to you earlier that the prosecutors say the knife matches one of the neck wounds and also that the wounds coming from both the left and the right.

Personally I don't need the knife to the assume guilt. IMO the evidence as a whole points to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Singling out the evidence and explaining it away is why Hellmann was annulled.

Thank you, how come no blood though?

 

[aa9511]

So far it is only two Pro innocent people even answering the question.

I don't think anyone on either side of this case can see every single piece of evidence supporting their side without any trace of reasonable doubt. Pro guilt may think on the whole it shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but I would suspect that most would think at least some single pieces of evidence are subject to doubt or multiple possible interpretations.

And for pro innocence, one can make out a scenario of guilt especially if you uses her statement. But getting to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is another matter.

Respectfully, I don't agree with your version of "reasonable doubt." I don't know if you watched the Arias trial or not, but I'm gonna use an example from there. We know Jodi Arias killed Travis Alexander. Now, I could pick out one small piece of the picture and say, well, that doesn't make sense, so that MUST be reasonable doubt! Ah-hah....I cracked the case....she is not guilty!! There is doubt! Like for example, Jodi kept her receipt for her transactions at the gas pumps in California, where she put the gas into her car and all the gas cans. Now, that seems like a stupid thing to do. Why would she do that? Well, they claim it's because she wanted to prove the route she took and her story of not going into Arizona (since there are no gas receipts from Arizona), but it actually made her look guilty in that she filled up the gas cans, and it clearly shows her close to the Arizona border and going in that direction.

So, can I look at that and say, oh wow, reasonable doubt!! Yes, NOT GUILTY. No, because actually that was because of her own stupidity. It was her own silly "planning" and mistake. It doesn't make sense, but the point is -- not every murder is perfectly planned. Just because the murderer does something that doesn't make sense to us, looking at it from after-the-fact, does that mean we should claim it is "reasonable doubt"??

Another example is she filled up her gas cans in Salt Lake City, too, after the murder and when she really didn't need to fill them up. Yet, she did and they provided proof that she lied about how many gas cans she had. So is that reasonable doubt, too? Becausae she made a silly, dumb mistake? I guess we can look at that and say, but why would she do that because it makes her look so guilty? Well, in reality, she's dumb and that's why she did it. And in reality, she's guilty.

So I'm not going to go down the road of tryiing to rationalize Amanda and RS's silly mistakes that they made, which make them look guilty.

The way this "reasonable doubt" is being framed, it makes it sound like Amanda and RS should have been professional hit-men who committed the perfect crime. In reality, it doesn't work that way. And perps make mistakes and they get nervous and they don't think clearly and they make dumb mistakes and on and on.

 

[Yellow]

I never am sure either. To me, if you quote and provide a link, it should all be the same. Yes, there have really been no objective books written about the Kercher case. Every one I know is either pro-innocence (Dempsey, Fisher, Burleigh) or pro-guilt (Nadeau, Follain, et al). TJMK is decidedly pro-guilt. IIP is a pro-innocence advocate site. I have quoted and linked all these sources. JREF has been linked and it is pro-innocence. I think all can be cited depending on what one wants to argue.

It just seems to me that some posts (on both sides) are stating statements on those sites as fact rather than opinion. Probably most of us know which ones are pro guilt or pro innocent and know to treat such statements w a grain of salt. Interpretation of evidence in those sites is all opinion.

But as a newcomer to this board, it is just something I observed over the last week that both sides do that sometimes.

 

[Amber29]

It is opinion that an article in the mainstream press is false and misleading. Once one piece is let in, that gets to be a slippery slope especially when the source pf the critique has an obvious slant. Can any website critiquing any news story in the main stream press be allowed to be posted? One can critique the article without posting to the site.

I noticed this alot this last week, with people citing to the 2 pro guilt websites everyone knows about as well as the 1 pro innocent ones. I am not sure what the exact rules are

Do you not agree that almost every article written about this case is slanted in someway. I honestly can not say I've read an article that isn't clearly written by someone from either side. All you can do is read them and know the actual facts for yourself. If I link an article and correct it with actual trial facts and evidence, why is that not ok?

For example an author referring to this as Knox being retried. She is not being retried, this is the same trial in the same appeal process and that author is misleading her readers. Many countries follow these rules of the prosecutors being able to appeal. While the US does not allow this, it doesn't change the fact that this is not a new trial.

 

[aa9511]

Moreover, I was also referring to the question asked before by someone asking for both sides to state their doubts about their own position, to see the case as the other side sees it.

So far no pro guilty people have done that, I was just pointing that out.

And it is not correct that all of my questions were answered

Yellow, not true, I posted my response, it is a few posts upthread.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Oh really? I have never seen any inkling of pause in any of the not-guilters, so forgive me.

There are at minimum two pieces of forensic evidence that if they had been tested in an outside lab and yielded certain results would have caused me to change my opinion. If the knife had been opened and Meredith's blood were present would be one. If the putative semen stain were subjected to a confirmatory test and if the DNA were shown to be Raffaele's DNA would be the other. I might even change my vote if the interrogation tapes showed no coercion of either Raffaele or of Amanda. What evidence would change your mind?

 

[aa9511]

How do you get beyond her knowing how the crime happened? How did she know that she was killed by the wardrobe and then moved? Luca couldn't have told her that because the investigators didn't even know yet.

When asked in court she couldn't explain it.

Where would you find reasonable doubt there?

:goodpost:

 

[Myvice]

The defense does not need to answer every question but the prosecution needs to prove guilt

Who knows what was said in the confusion? Who knows what she overheard? How do we know what she saw? Or maybe even guessed?

Moreover, maybe there is a scenario where she came home to the cottage after the murder and saw the murder scene, she's lying about coming home and seeing it but she did not commit the murder

Either possibility is an equally plausible explanation. Indeed, it does not even need to be equally plausible. Maybe for pro guilty they view that evidence as the most likely scenario. But a possible and not unreasonable scenario is either one of the other situations.

For me, beyond a reasonable doubt highlights the REASONABLE part.

If she came home and saw the murder scene and lied about it, (for no REASONABLE reason) she still wouldn't have realized the body had been moved.

IMO, the prosecutors don't have to prove that each piece of evidence could not have a possible alternate scenario, just that so many probable things come together as a whole to arrive at the conclusion.

Some of the things presented might be explained away but not all of them. You don't know how a crime went down if you weren't there as an example.

 

[Coldpizza]

You can quote from MSM articles but only 10% per copyright. If certain blogs have been approved you can paraphrase and provide the link, but not directly quote. If you have a site you would like considered to link but aren't sure please PM a mod of your choice. We are all happy to help.

Hth