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

[Yellow]

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

It is post 170 on number 7 or this thread.

 

[aa9511]

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.

Okay, let's see what they say in their next decision.

 

[Sigh Sister]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just bringing this forward

 

[Amber29]

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.

Exactly everything can have an explanation. Just look at RS feeling the need to justify Meredith's DNA on his knife.

RG tried to explain his presence at the cottage as being invited there by Meredith. Just because he uses that explanation as why his DNA is there doesn't make it true. You could say RG came to house front door open after the killing, tried to help Meredith with towels got blood on his hands and feet, and ran out but that's not reasonable is it. There's no murder weapon to proof RG guilty, does that make him innocent? No

I'm not going to single out the evidence and justify it for them.
RS said he slept in that morning, his computer showed he was awake at 530am listened to music and turned on his phone. Why should I come up with an explanation for him, when he clearly said he slept in that morning.

 

[otto]

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.

Sollecito had trouble with police because of drugs, but no criminal record. Knox had trouble with police because of a party where guests where throwing rocks at passing vehicles, but no criminal record. Guede had trouble with police because he was in a daycare which he said he thought was a squatter location, hut no criminal record.

None of them had a criminal record, so it's not possible to make assumptions based on criminal history.

 

[Yellow]

I would also submit that any evidence of guilt would have to rest on one of two scenarios:1) some sort of pre-existing relationship among the three, of which it would merely be speculation since we have no evidence of any relationship w respect to drugs nor do we have any evidence that RS even knew who RG was. However, the preexisting relationship story has a more plausible motive than the second situation

Or 2) AK knew RG casually. RG did in fact break into the house and planned to rob them and/or rape. At this point, AK and RS become involved in the murder in one of 2 ways. Either RG is just sitting there talking with MK, nothing is going on, and AK gets the bright idea to murder and proposes the idea to RG and RS. RG, at this point, was only going to steal so AK convinces him why not go all the way and murder.

OR RG is in the process of murderimg MK and AK decides she wants to join in, having no fear that RG would then turn the knife on her to murder her or RS. Either of these scenarios sound ridiculous as I am typing them, like a bad lifetime movie.

The first scenario is the most plausible, but there is a big problem w that - no evidence of any kind of preexisting relationship that culminate in murder.

 

[TorisMom003]

Sollecito had trouble with police because of drugs, but no criminal record. Knox had trouble with police because of a party where guests where throwing rocks at passing vehicles, but no criminal record. Guede had trouble with police because he was in a daycare which he said he thought was a squatter location, hut no criminal record.

None of them had a criminal record, so it's not possible to make assumptions based on criminal history.

This states otherwise about Guede.

"Guede was already well known to police by the time he killed Miss Kercher. As well as being a drug dealer with a criminal record for minor drugs offences, he had been held in Milan in the weeks before the murder for an alleged theft. On that occasion, he broke into a school to hide from police and, significantly, had a knife in his hand when he was eventually arrested."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...245/Amanda-Knox-trial-Rudy-Guede-profile.html

And another one.

"But when police analyzed the crime scene, they found no DNA from Knox. Instead, they found DNA from someone else, a local drifter named Rudy Guede who had a criminal history of break-ins in Perguia and Milan."

http://abcnews.go.com/International...g-revenge-redemption/story?id=14623904&page=2

 

[SMK]

It is post 170 on number 7 or this thread.

Thanks. I would agree any of those might be true. But I feel there was more to it than being stoned. It's very hard to figure out, and there is a mountain of unsettled doubts.

 

[Yellow]

Exactly everything can have an explanation. Just look at RS feeling the need to justify Meredith's DNA on his knife.

RG tried to explain his presence at the cottage as being invited there by Meredith. Just because he uses that explanation as why his DNA is there doesn't make it true. You could say RG came to house front door open after the killing, tried to help Meredith with towels got blood on his hands and feet, and ran out but that's not reasonable is it. There's no murder weapon to proof RG guilty, does that make him innocent? No

I'm not going to single out the evidence and justify it for them.
RS said he slept in that morning, his computer showed he was awake at 530am listened to music and turned on his phone. Why should I come up with an explanation for him, when he clearly said he slept in that morning.

None of us, I don't think, have ever been the suspect in a murder investigation as a young adult. We simply would not know whether we would remember whether or not we slept in or not. Alot of time people "sleep in" when they are really half awake, I.e. listening to music, etc. It is hardly evidence of murder. I also sometimes look at my email, then go back to bed, I would still consider it that I slept in.

There are lots of reasons AK could have lied. Maybe she touched the knife and thought they would pin the murder on her. Or maybe she did something else. Maybe they were doing something unrelated to the crime where they feared arrest. The "lies" (which may or may not actually be lies) have a plausible explanation for them. Maybe they were at the cottage that night, after the murder. Maybe she was there during the murder and saw it happen. Maybe she feels guilty about not stepping forward to help MK while the murder was happening.

 

[aa9511]

Exactly everything can have an explanation. Just look at RS feeling the need to justify Meredith's DNA on his knife.

RG tried to explain his presence at the cottage as being invited there by Meredith. Just because he uses that explanation as why his DNA is there doesn't make it true. You could say RG came to house front door open after the killing, tried to help Meredith with towels got blood on his hands and feet, and ran out but that's not reasonable is it. There's no murder weapon to proof RG guilty, does that make him innocent? No

I'm not going to single out the evidence and justify it for them.
RS said he slept in that morning, his computer showed he was awake at 530am listened to music and turned on his phone. Why should I come up with an explanation for him, when he clearly said he slept in that morning.

ITA. We have to work with the evidence we have, and that includes their lies (saying you were on the computer the whole night, when the computer records show the last human activity was around 8:30, is a lie), and their inconsistencies, and the inconsistencies between RS's stories and Amanda's stories. All of that is evidence. I have never followed a case where the defendant's words and actions surrounding the murder were not a part of the case.

There is no reasonable explanation to explain away the totality of the evidence as a whole.

 

[Yellow]

Thanks. I would agree any of those might be true. But I feel there was more to it than being stoned. It's very hard to figure out, and there is a mountain of unsettled doubts.

Yeah, it could very well be that something else was going on there. If I personally were AK once this is all set and done if I was truly innocent I would set myself up w a lie detector test on Dr Phil or whatever. I know it does nothing w respect to the legal system but I think if she does not want to have these doubts about her she would be wise to do that.

Still the way the system works is that if there is even a small chance of a doubt so long as it is reasonable, we would need to acquit her. I also think his case is even stronger for acquittal. They really have nothing against him except the bra and that is contaminated. His lawyer should have separates out his trial from hers. The two cases w AK and RS are very different I think, different motives, very evidence that is most compelling.

 

[Yellow]

Will the court issue their written judgement in January or will it be like last time with an oral judgement with written to follow like 6 months later?

 

[aa9511]

I would also submit that any evidence of guilt would have to rest on one of two scenarios:1) some sort of pre-existing relationship among the three, of which it would merely be speculation since we have no evidence of any relationship w respect to drugs nor do we have any evidence that RS even knew who RG was. However, the preexisting relationship story has a more plausible motive than the second situation

Or 2) AK knew RG casually. RG did in fact break into the house and planned to rob them and/or rape. At this point, AK and RS become involved in the murder in one of 2 ways. Either RG is just sitting there talking with MK, nothing is going on, and AK gets the bright idea to murder and proposes the idea to RG and RS. RG, at this point, was only going to steal so AK convinces him why not go all the way and murder.

OR RG is in the process of murderimg MK and AK decides she wants to join in, having no fear that RG would then turn the knife on her to murder her or RS. Either of these scenarios sound ridiculous as I am typing them, like a bad lifetime movie.

The first scenario is the most plausible, but there is a big problem w that - no evidence of any kind of preexisting relationship that culminate in murder.

I think we have been over the same points many times. Like was pointed out before, not all murders make "sense" to other people.

 

[Sigh Sister]

I would also submit that any evidence of guilt would have to rest on one of two scenarios:1) some sort of pre-existing relationship among the three, of which it would merely be speculation since we have no evidence of any relationship w respect to drugs nor do we have any evidence that RS even knew who RG was. However, the preexisting relationship story has a more plausible motive than the second situation

Or 2) AK knew RG casually. RG did in fact break into the house and planned to rob them and/or rape. At this point, AK and RS become involved in the murder in one of 2 ways. Either RG is just sitting there talking with MK, nothing is going on, and AK gets the bright idea to murder and proposes the idea to RG and RS. RG, at this point, was only going to steal so AK convinces him why not go all the way and murder.

OR RG is in the process of murderimg MK and AK decides she wants to join in, having no fear that RG would then turn the knife on her to murder her or RS. Either of these scenarios sound ridiculous as I am typing them, like a bad lifetime movie.

The first scenario is the most plausible, but there is a big problem w that - no evidence of any kind of preexisting relationship that culminate in murder.

Or as one theory put forth by Massei which is similar to your second scenario : AK and RS are intimately involved in AK 's bedroom. RG hears this while on the toilet and becomes aroused and makes advances on MK. RS and AK hear the commotion and decide to join in.
:facepalm:

"Finally, the Corte di Assise*confronts the difficulty of explaining such cruel conduct in the absence of a plausible motive, and, ruling out premeditation, finds that what happened was on the one hand the product of a set of random circumstances, and on the other hand of a choice of extreme experimentation, a choice of evil for the sake of evil. As the Corte di Assise would have it, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, happening to find themselves with a free evening (Amanda Knox no longer had to go to work, and Raffaele Sollecito no longer had to accompany a friend to the bus station), went to Amanda Knox’s house, where, perhaps after having made use of mind-altering substances, they proceeded to make love in her room. But Rudy Guede was also present in the same apartment (either because he went there together with the other two, or because he was let in later), and he, after having been in the bathroom (and having left his own feces in the toilet without flushing), found himself in an environment full of erotic temptations [sollecitazioni]: Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in her room making love, and a girl alone in her own room, Meredith Kercher, who thus became a predestined object of desire. Rejected by her, Rudy Guede, instead of running away, persevered in the attempt to achieve his intentions…but at this point, evidently alerted by the commotion, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox rushed into Meredith Kercher’s room and, instead of defending her, took the side of Rudy Guede, in order to experience *this new emotion: eros*and violence,"
"

 

[Chris_Halkides]

ITA. We have to work with the evidence we have, and that includes their lies (saying you were on the computer the whole night, when the computer records show the last human activity was around 8:30, is a lie)....

The last undisputed interaction on Raffaele's computer is at 9:08, and there is the disputed interaction (opening Naruto) at 9:26. Raffaele's previous appeal brought up the issue of the screensaver log files; his present appeal may include further information (I have not seen it). It is undisputed that the police destroyed metadata, such as the last time that the Stardust file was opened. There is no reason to believe that the police's computer experts are more competent and objective than Sollecito's experts. The contrary argument is actually stronger.

This is a good example of how the claims that Raffaele or Amanda lied are found to be something other than unassailable, when they are subject to scrutiny. However, your comment emboldens me to suggest that we also have to work with the lies of ILE, which are evidence that the actual case is not that strong. MOO.

 

[TorisMom003]

ITA. We have to work with the evidence we have, and that includes their lies (saying you were on the computer the whole night, when the computer records show the last human activity was around 8:30, is a lie), and their inconsistencies, and the inconsistencies between RS's stories and Amanda's stories. All of that is evidence. I have never followed a case where the defendant's words and actions surrounding the murder were not a part of the case.

There is no reasonable explanation to explain away the totality of the evidence as a whole.

BBM

But who's lie is it? Since the computer information was destroyed and we have only the word of the ones that are prosecuting AK and RS, can we really trust it?

 

[Amber29]

Will the court issue their written judgement in January or will it be like last time with an oral judgement with written to follow like 6 months later?

They have 90 days to write their reasoning. Iirc

 

[aa9511]

None of us, I don't think, have ever been the suspect in a murder investigation as a young adult. We simply would not know whether we would remember whether or not we slept in or not. Alot of time people "sleep in" when they are really half awake, I.e. listening to music, etc. It is hardly evidence of murder. I also sometimes look at my email, then go back to bed, I would still consider it that I slept in.

There are lots of reasons AK could have lied. Maybe she touched the knife and thought they would pin the murder on her. Or maybe she did something else. Maybe they were doing something unrelated to the crime where they feared arrest. The "lies" (which may or may not actually be lies) have a plausible explanation for them. Maybe they were at the cottage that night, after the murder. Maybe she was there during the murder and saw it happen. Maybe she feels guilty about not stepping forward to help MK while the murder was happening.

Juan Martinez told the jury, "you are not supposed to speculate BEYOND what the evidence tells you." He also said, "you are not supposed to be investigators and try to find evidence that isn't there." He said, "you are to look at the facts which were presented to you in court, and only those facts, and come to a determination whether or not those facts point to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
***** I am paraphrasing him from memory from the Arias and Chrisman trials, but I'm pretty sure I came pretty close to what he actually said. Anyone who cares to check can look at the closing arguments in the Jodi Arias trial and the Richard Chrisman trial.

With the example of RS that was stated in your post, you are speculating on behalf of Raffaelo. That is pure speculation. Rather than look objectively at what he actually said, and what the computer and phone records actually show. You are also speculating about his state of mind. We are not supposed to speculate on "other things" they could have been doing unrelated to the crime. I am not talking about here on this thread, I'm responding to what you said in your posts, which is from the point-of-view of a jury in finding reasonable doubt. What is in evidence is what they said they were doing, which was at Raffaelo's place, eating, on the computer, having sex, then sleeping until 10 am. That is what is in the evidence of what they were doing at the time of the murder. Ambiguous, "other things" are not in evidence.

Same with the second paragraph. We are not supposed to speculate on what else she "could have done." We don't know whether she thought they would pin the murder on her or not. We don't know whether she felt guilty or not, in fact the evidence points more the other way (callous remarks).

 

[aa9511]

The last undisputed interaction on Raffaele's computer is at 9:08, and there is the disputed interaction (opening Naruto) at 9:26. Raffaele's previous appeal brought up the issue of the screensaver log files; his present appeal may include further information (I have not seen it). It is undisputed that the police destroyed metadata, such as the last time that the Stardust file was opened. There is no reason to believe that the police's computer experts are more competent and objective than Sollecito's experts. The contrary argument is actually stronger.

This is a good example of how the claims that Raffaele or Amanda lied are found to be something other than unassailable, when they are subject to scrutiny. However, your comment emboldens me to suggest that we also have to work with the lies of ILE, which are evidence that the actual case is not that strong. MOO.

I read that the last human interaction was 8:26 pm, IIRC. Let me see if I can find a link or something.

Of course, the computer activity will be "disputed" by the defense - that is a big deal to their case, big deal. Do you think something so central to his case as his alibi will not be "disputed." For this reason, I am not going to take the defense's "word" on this as the true fact. They have EVERY REASON to dispute it and frankly, distort it.

And who has more of an incentive to lie about that? The prosecution, or Raffaelo whose very libertyis on the line.

 

[redheadedgal]

Juan Martinez told the jury, "you are not supposed to speculate BEYOND what the evidence tells you." He also said, "you are not supposed to be investigators and try to find evidence that isn't there." He said, "you are to look at the facts which were presented to you in court, and only those facts, and come to a determination whether or not those facts point to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
***** I am paraphrasing him from memory from the Arias and Chrisman trials, but I'm pretty sure I came pretty close to what he actually said. Anyone who cares to check can look at the closing arguments in the Jodi Arias trial and the Richard Chrisman trial.

the opinion of an american investigator, professor, etc is undesirable, but the opinion of an american prosecutor should be valued and regurgitated here?

As I said in my previous post, I don't really trust these so-called "independent" investigators that have come out of the woodworks everywhere. Especially not from the U.S..