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

[geevee]

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.

Frankly I'm beginning to see 'the evidence as a whole' as proof that AK lived in that cottage and her boyfriend's dna was found in small amounts as you'd expect a visitor's would, RG's dna was everywhere the murder occurred but AK's and RS's was only found in small enough amounts as to be explained as them having been there. Everything beyond that, so far as I've seen (and I do fully admit I have not pored over every bit of evidence but looking at what I have seen as a whole) are many inferences drawn and conclusions reached that do not speak to the evidence as a whole but merely are used to show she and RS could have been involved.

I fully agree her statements have not given her a look of innocence and have worked against her, but so far, I have not seen a weapon placed in her hand, or her boyfriend's, but it is indisputable (to me) that it was in RG's hand.

I am still on the fence though, I hope this trial will answer lingering questions but I sorta doubt it.

 

[aa9511]

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

Yes, lack of more evidence, that is what the supporter of her innocence have been saying FOREVER! What do you mean, my short answer is "no"?? Unless I have been in some alternate universe and not in reality, supporters of her innocence have been saying for a long time that how come there is "so much" Rudy DNA in the murder room, but not so much of RS and Amanda's DNA? If they were involved in the murder, "we" would expect there to be more of their DNA in the room. I know I have heard this countless times.

But when I say the same thing, it somehow comes across as disingenuous?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

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.

Any knife could have made the third wound (which was a slash wound IIUC), but the large kitchen knife could not have made one or two of the other wounds. In other words a single smaller knife could have made all three wounds and have been responsible for the bloody outline of a knife.

It is not enough for the prosecution to say look at these little bits of evidence that we say point to guilt. IMO they should state a timeline or narrative of the crime that includes everything that they used as evidence. When Massei tried to do this, he made all kinds of ridiculous suppositions, and the result was something that no one quite believed. And no wonder that such a narrative does not exist; the elements don't fit together smoothly.

 

[Yellow]

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.

I think JA did it, I have no reasonable doubt there, nor do I have reasonable doubt about Casey or Scott Peterson. I actually think Casey 's lawyer did a good job in closing argument showing what RD is- it is not probably did it, or possibly, it is you really believe they did it without any basis in reason to doubt it.

Here, I believe the two are innocent, but even if I take the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecutor, without any forensic evidence tying them to the murder weapon and the murder room, at best, you might have "probably" did it. That is not enough, of course you do not always need forensic evidence but in cases where you don't have it you often have a very strong motive and a tighter curcumstantial case,

The other day I outlined 7 scenarios, 5 of innocence/semi involvement and 2 of guilt. The mere fact that I can make out even one case of possible innocence is enough to acquit. I am also a lawyer too, and learned crim law in school from one of the most famous crim defense lawyers in the country. I am usually pro guilt in most cases actually.

 

[geevee]

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.

Nevermind, ColdPizza answered above. lol

 

[Yellow]

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

When I made my post, I did not yet see your posts we were probably posting at the same time

 

[Yellow]

Yes, lack of more evidence, that is what the supporter of her innocence have been saying FOREVER! What do you mean, my short answer is "no"?? Unless I have been in some alternate universe and not in reality, supporters of her innocence have been saying for a long time that how come there is "so much" Rudy DNA in the murder room, but not so much of RS and Amanda's DNA? If they were involved in the murder, "we" would expect there to be more of their DNA in the room. I know I have heard this countless times.

But when I say the same thing, it somehow comes across as disingenuous?

Because each side has a different burden, we cannot view statements about the evidence as meaning the same for both sides. IMO, A statement that there is no AK or RS DNA in that murder room is very telling and at least raises doubts as to whether they were in that room. For people who believe in her guilt they think it sufficient to rely on inferences from third parties to put her in that room as well as contaminated or low carbon DNA. Just different ways of viewing the evidence.

I would just think that most of those who believe in her guilt might have some doubts about a single piece of evidence, like maybe the knife. With no blood on it and no proof it alone matched the wounds, how could there be no doubt that knife was used to stab someone. Someone could still believe in he guilt yet have doubts on some pieces of evidence. That is what I think the poster meant, that there were not any doubts about anything in the case at all

 

[Sigh Sister]

Yes, lack of more evidence, that is what the supporter of her innocence have been saying FOREVER! What do you mean, my short answer is "no"?? Unless I have been in some alternate universe and not in reality, supporters of her innocence have been saying for a long time that how come there is "so much" Rudy DNA in the murder room, but not so much of RS and Amanda's DNA? If they were involved in the murder, "we" would expect there to be more of their DNA in the room. I know I have heard this countless times.

But when I say the same thing, it somehow comes across as disingenuous?

Yikes! I did not mean to suggest that you came across as disingenuous. My question was regarding evidence that IS available. I didn't mean to upset you.

 

[miley]

Yes, I believe it was Luca the friend, from other posts upthread. That makes a lot of sense, as questioning a "friend" about the details of the crime is a lot less risky than questioning police as asking a lot of questions of the police makes one look suspicious. The "friend" was an easy way to gather information. Which is what both RS and Amanda were doing. Her supposed tears were crocodile tears, IMO.

I believe everyone was asked to leave the cottage, Luca stayed behind and listened to Basstelli on the phone describing the scene. Luca saw Basstelli enter Meredith's room which btw Bastelli denied on the stand.

I don't consider Luca morbid for wanting to know the details of what happened. I.m sure this was Luca's and RS's, first experience dealing with something of this magnitude, and in the moment, "oh my God, what's going on, what happened," they were both naturally curious.

 

[aa9511]

Any knife could have made the third wound (which was a slash wound IIUC), but the large kitchen knife could not have made one or two of the other wounds. In other words a single smaller knife could have made all three wounds and have been responsible for the bloody outline of a knife.

It is not enough for the prosecution to say look at these little bits of evidence that we say point to guilt. IMO they should state a timeline or narrative of the crime that includes everything that they used as evidence. When Massei tried to do this, he made all kinds of ridiculous suppositions, and the result was something that no one quite believed. And no wonder that such a narrative does not exist; the elements don't fit together smoothly.

bbm

Only problem with this is, as I said in response to another post, it doens't account for the perp's frankly, mistakes, stupidity, thoughtless-ness, careless-ness, inability to foretell what investigators will find, etc.. Sometimes the pieces "dont' fit" because the crime is not perfect. Because the perp or perps made mistakes that don't make sense to the rest of us who are viewing it after-the-fact.

For example, with the cell phones. Those cell phones are what caused the policia to come to the cottage in the first place and thus discovered the body. If the perps are Amanda and RS, it does not make logical sense to us now, looking back, as to why they would throw the cell phones out without turning them off or removing the battery. Because we know, that was a mistake and led to the policia coming to the cottage, especially with the fact of Amanda and RS standing right outside the door of a cottage with a dead body in it. Sure doesn't look good for them, does it? I'm sure they would have preferred the body being discovered under very different circumstances.

Now, can we look at that because it doesn't make sense in the "big picture,' and just toss it out? Completely toss out the fact that cell phones were thrown away?

No. It doesn't work that way. I have my own theory of why the cell phones werent' turned off, and that is because RS and Amanda had turned off their own cell phones, and so by turning Meredith's off, they would all 3 have been off and that doesn't look good. They didnt' want anyone to connect those dots or make any connection there. Also, they probably didn't think about her cell phones until after the murder and death, and if they had turned them off at that time, the time of death would have been very obvious. The time would have been essentially recorded in her phone.

So becauase RS and Amanda did something, frankly, dumb and didn't plan it out well.....does that mean we should disregard the fact? No, it is still a fact in evidence, that the cell phones were thrown where they were and in what state they were in.

The pieces are not going to fit together neatly like in the movies. Because in reality, people are dumb and they make mistakes. Or they don't have the ability to fore-tell the future and predict exactly what the investigators will find and what conclusions they'll come to.

 

[aa9511]

I believe everyone was asked to leave the cottage, Luca stayed behind and listened to Basstelli on the phone describing the scene. Luca saw Basstelli enter Meredith's room which btw Bastelli denied on the stand.

I don't consider Luca morbid for wanting to know the details of what happened. I.m sure this was Luca's and RS's, first experience dealing with something of this magnitude, and in the moment, "oh my God, what's going on, what happened," they were both naturally curious.

Except if the person asking about the details is a person who was there and who already knew the details, and who would in fact know many more details than the policia/investigators. :facepalm:

 

[miley]

[/B]So becauase RS and Amanda did something, frankly, dumb and didn't plan it out well.....does that mean we should disregard the fact? No, it is still a fact in evidence, that the cell phones were thrown where they were and in what state they were in.

The pieces are not going to fit together neatly like in the movies. Because in reality, people are dumb and they make mistakes. Or they don't have the ability to fore-tell the future and predict exactly what the investigators will find and what conclusions they'll come to.

dumb? They managed to erase invisible traces of themselves while intentionally leaving invisible traces of someone else - that's remarkable.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

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.

Candace Dempsey (pp. 82-83) wrote, "She told Sophie, incorrectly, that Meredith had been found in the wardrobe with only her foot sticking out. The only correct detail she had, in fact, was that her flatmate's throat had been cut."

 

[aa9511]

I think JA did it, I have no reasonable doubt there, nor do I have reasonable doubt about Casey or Scott Peterson. I actually think Casey 's lawyer did a good job in closing argument showing what RD is- it is not probably did it, or possibly, it is you really believe they did it without any basis in reason to doubt it.

Here, I believe the two are innocent, but even if I take the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecutor, without any forensic evidence tying them to the murder weapon and the murder room, at best, you might have "probably" did it. That is not enough, of course you do not always need forensic evidence but in cases where you don't have it you often have a very strong motive and a tighter curcumstantial case,

The other day I outlined 7 scenarios, 5 of innocence/semi involvement and 2 of guilt. The mere fact that I can make out even one case of possible innocence is enough to acquit. I am also a lawyer too, and learned crim law in school from one of the most famous crim defense lawyers in the country. I am usually pro guilt in most cases actually.

bbm

Respectfully, the circumstantial case is by necessity going to be "tight" when someone explains away every circumstantial evidence, not necessarily within reason, or chooses not to believe many of the circumstantial factors. So I would suggest that the circumstantial case is not tight at all, but rather very very compelling.

Your scenarios all assumed certain things related to her innocence, such as her false accusation was coerced, that she was under pressure for all of her lies and inconsistencies, and so forth. You never took into account, that she could be lying just because maybe, she's just guilty. So when something is based, by necessity, in a pre-determined factor of her innonce or guilt, then one cannot reasonably expect the future conclusions drawn from that to be accurate.

 

[aa9511]

Because each side has a different burden, we cannot view statements about the evidence as meaning the same for both sides. IMO, A statement that there is no AK or RS DNA in that murder room is very telling and at least raises doubts as to whether they were in that room. For people who believe in her guilt they think it sufficient to rely on inferences from third parties to put her in that room as well as contaminated or low carbon DNA. Just different ways of viewing the evidence.

I would just think that most of those who believe in her guilt might have some doubts about a single piece of evidence, like maybe the knife. With no blood on it and no proof it alone matched the wounds, how could there be no doubt that knife was used to stab someone. Someone could still believe in he guilt yet have doubts on some pieces of evidence. That is what I think the poster meant, that there were not any doubts about anything in the case at all

I was trying to say that that was my doubt, that there was not more evidence (at least found evidence) of them in the murder room. I don't udnerstand what is so unclear about this when it is one of the CENTRAL pieces of the case for the pro-innocent supporters?

And my doubt is for a much more central piece of the case - the evidence in the murder room - than an outlying piece of case which is not that central, such as the lamp.

 

[aa9511]

Yikes! I did not mean to suggest that you came across as disingenuous. My question was regarding evidence that IS available. I didn't mean to upset you.

LOL! :floorlaugh: It's all good, SighSister. You just have to understand my personality, I get carried away sometimes....LOL!!

 

[TorisMom003]

Sollecito had been living on his own for four years while attending University. He was not a "kid" "cutting loose" because he was away from parental supervision. In fact, his mother had passed away a couple of years earlier and he had been on his own for some time.

Was Guede, a "kid" "cutting loose" when was involved in the murder of Meredith? I would never equate "cutting loose" with murder. He and Knox are the same age. Why is it understandable that when a "kid" like Guede "cuts loose", he commits murder, but when a "kid" like Knox commits murder, it's unbelievable?

Criminal history of the two in question plays a big part here. When one has a criminal history then it is much easier to see them committing a crime.

 

[Yellow]

bbm

Respectfully, the circumstantial case is by necessity going to be "tight" when someone explains away every circumstantial evidence, not necessarily within reason, or chooses not to believe many of the circumstantial factors. So I would suggest that the circumstantial case is not tight at all, but rather very very compelling.

Your scenarios all assumed certain things related to her innocence, such as her false accusation was coerced, that she was under pressure for all of her lies and inconsistencies, and so forth. You never took into account, that she could be lying just because maybe, she's just guilty. So when something is based, by necessity, in a pre-determined factor of her innonce or guilt, then one cannot reasonably expect the future conclusions drawn from that to be accurate.

Any statement that the Supreme Court threw out should not even be considered in making out a circumstantial case IMO. Actually it is not even IMO - i don't think legally jt can even be done. it is not my opinion it was faulty; the italian legal system said it was. Problem here is they did the Patrick trial the same time so it was near impossible for the jurors not to at least have that in the back of their minds.

So one cannot use anything she said in that inadmissible statement to prove anything. Anything else besides that is fair game. There are a few of my scenarios that accept lying as given yet still not have her as the murderer. She could have returned to the cottage that night, been stoned, did not call police bc maybe she was afraid to get arrested for drugs, etc. Maybe she even picked up the knife before realizing it was a murder scene. That scenario explains alot of what some people have issues with. Yet that still leaves doubt as to whether she herself picked up the knife and brutally stabbed her roommate.

So even if you accept some lying you can still make out a case that is reasonable based on the evidence. There is also another case - the one most touted by pro innocence - that explains the lies as misunderstandings and confusion. That too is an equally plausible scenario

If you read my 7 scenarios, you would have seen I had the last 2 where she was in fact guilty. That is one scenario that COULD be true. And it would be relevant if I was trying to prove her innocence - but I am not. I have to prove he guilty.

Frankly, prosecutors have to explain away any reasonable scenario that shows her innocent or at least as maybe lying but not participating in the murder. Without even proving a murder weapon or proving they were in the murder room they cannot disprove those alternative scenarios IMO.

It is their burden to show guilt not the defense's to show innocence, maybe bc the 2 are factually innocent that is why the defense chose the tactics it did; but I would submit that as a legal maneuver the defense should be focusing more on reasonable doubt rather than try to prove their factual innocence. I think on focusing in factual innocence, this case turns into a debate about her innocence rather than a debate about her guilt. She may be guilty of lying, she may be guilty of seeing the crime scene and not reporting it, but those things do not necessarily mean she murdered anyone

Lying does not mean murder.

 

[SMK]

Any statement that the Supreme Court threw out should not even be considered in making out a circumstantial case IMO. Actually it is not even IMO - i don't think legally jt can even be done. it is not my opinion it was faulty; the italian legal system said it was. Problem here is they did the Patrick trial the same time so it was near impossible for the jurors not to at least have that in the back of their minds.

So one cannot use anything she said in that inadmissible statement to prove anything. Anything else besides that is fair game. There are a few of my scenarios that accept lying as given yet still not have her as the murderer. She could have returned to the cottage that night, been stoned, did not call police bc maybe she was afraid to get arrested for drugs, etc. Maybe she even picked up the knife before realizing it was a murder scene. That scenario explains alot of what some people have issues with. Yet that still leaves doubt as to whether she herself picked up the knife and brutally stabbed her roommate.

So even if you accept some lying you can still make out a case that is reasonable based on the evidence. There is also another case - the one most touted by pro innocence - that explains the lies as misunderstandings and confusion. That too is an equally plausible scenario

If you read my 7 scenarios, you would have seen I had the last 2 where she was in fact guilty. That is one scenario that COULD be true. And it would be relevant if I was trying to prove her innocence - but I am not. I have to prove he guilty.

Frankly, prosecutors have to explain away any reasonable scenario that shows her innocent or at least as maybe lying but not participating in the murder. Without even proving a murder weapon or proving they were in the murder room they cannot disprove those alternative scenarios IMO.

It is their burden to show guilt not the defense's to show innocence, maybe bc the 2 are factually innocent that is why the defense chose the tactics it did; but I would submit that as a legal maneuver the defense should be focusing more on reasonable doubt rather than try to prove their factual innocence. I think on focusing in factual innocence, this case turns into a debate about her innocence rather than a debate about her guilt. She may be guilty of lying, she may be guilty of seeing the crime scene and not reporting it, but those things do not necessarily mean she murdered anyone

Lying does not mean murder.

I missed your 7 scenarios--can you link me to them?

 

[SMK]

So Crini will finish his other points tomorrow. He places great emphasis on the PL accusation as evidence of guilt (so he agrees with you @ Otto)