Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#6

[Yellow]

If this text, Clinical Forensic Medicine, can be trusted, there is no way to determine if
a. the smaller wounds are from taunting or
b. the smaller wounds are from holding the victim at bay with knifepoint:

p. 208

Minor incised wounds may be identified if the knife is held against the skin (often seen in the neck area) or if the tip of the knife has been used to taunt the compliant...

http://books.google.com/books?id=zp...nsics knife wounds which are taunting&f=false

So it is all a matter of how the defense or prosecution interpret this in light of all the other evidence.

So yes, in order to follow the prosecutions case you would have had to believe that AK hates her so much that she wanted to taunt her,. What evidence is there of such hatred? Indeed, I do not think the prosecution is even naming this argument anymore, they seem to have switched to a more impulsive anger attack based on AK going berserk over MK chiding her over cleaning (though we also have no evidence of that either; anyone ever testify they saw the two girls arguing at all? Anyone see them fighting about cleaning? Anyone hear AK talk bad about mK? No)

 

[Yellow]

But if all of the above is true, then why was this case ever sent to trial in the first place? Something is not adding up.......

Well it should not have been. It was likely due to an over zealous prosecutor who wanted to save face, also many careers were made or will be tarnished by the outcome of this case

Sometimes cases go to trial w weak evidence. And obviously some people on this board think like the Italians and see no reasonable doubt. They think there is only one way to interpret the evidence

It is also my understanding that in Italy the defense really does not have the chance to challenge the prosecutor case until the appeal. They won last time when they contested it. They should win again this time. I think it was just so clear last time to the appellate court that the DNA evidence was a mess that the appeals court did not think it necessary to address all this crazy side evidence that does not make sense. This time I suspect they will rectify this mistake and will find them not guilty.

 

[otto]

So yes, in order to follow the prosecutions case you would have had to believe that AK hates her so much that she wanted to taunt her,. What evidence is there of such hatred? Indeed, I do not think the prosecution is even naming this argument anymore, they seem to have switched to a more impulsive anger attack based on AK going berserk over MK chiding her over cleaning (though we also have no evidence of that either; anyone ever testify they saw the two girls arguing at all? Anyone see them fighting about cleaning? Anyone hear AK talk bad about mK? No)

Yesterday there was a link to a student from the US that stabbed his friend in Rome after a night of drugs and alcohol. I don't think anyone is assuming that he hated his friend so much that he murdered him. It's clearly a case where drugs altered his ability to think to the extent that he did something completely irregular. Why should this case be any different? What seemed like a good idea in an altered state is revealed as an insane act after the fact.

 

[Yellow]

Sexual assault, in and of itself, is a "sick sexual thing".

I agree, I guess I should clarify and say there is no evidence of any type of perverted mutilation, posing, etc which is often seen in sadistic sexual assault cases. I do not mean to minimize how horrible rape is, my point is that in these sadistuc acts they often go further and do even more perverted things like mutilation or posing, of which there is no evidence of that here.

 

[otto]

Well it should not have been. It was likely due to an over zealous prosecutor who wanted to save face, also many careers were made or will be tarnished by the outcome of this case

Sometimes cases go to trial w weak evidence. And obviously some people on this board think like the Italians and see no reasonable doubt. They think there is only one way to interpret the evidence

It is also my understanding that in Italy the defense really does not have the chance to challenge the prosecutor case until the appeal. They won last time when they contested it. They should win again this time. I think it was just so clear last time to the appellate court that the DNA evidence was a mess that the appeals court did not think it necessary to address all this crazy side evidence that does not make sense. This time I suspect they will rectify this mistake and will find them not guilty.

BBM
What does that mean ... "wanting to save face"? Is the suggestion that after Knox and Sollecito were arrested, the prosector's office was unable to back down even if there was no evidence? If that's the case, why was the prosecutor's office able to back down and release Patrick?

The defense was heard throughout the trial. They did not have to wait until the appeal to present a case.

 

[Yellow]

Yesterday there was a link to a student from the US that stabbed his friend in Rome after a night of drugs and alcohol. I don't think anyone is assuming that he hated his friend so much that he murdered him. It's clearly a case where drugs altered his ability to think to the extent that he did something completely irregular. Why should this case be any different? What seemed like a good idea in an altered state is revealed as an insane act after the fact.

First, that case involved known ecstasy, there is no evidence of that drug or any drug other than pot here. That distinction is key. Second, those quick snippets do not indicate whether this defendant had known psychological problems nor do they indicate the preexisting relationship between him and roommate. We have absence of info not absence of evidence. Third, that cases involved a single male defendant not one in which 2 other people get themselves involved

If we had evidence the three did ecstasy that night, or that the 3 regularly partied together that might be more convincing but we have no evidence of the sort. We do not even have any evidence AK did ectassy ever in her life.

 

[otto]

First, that case involved known ecstasy, there is no evidence of that drug or any drug other than pot here. That distinction is key. Second, those quick snippets do not indicate whether this defendant had known psychological problems nor do they indicate the preexisting relationship between him and roommate. We have absence of info not absence of evidence. Third, that cases involved a single male defendant not one in which 2 other people get themselves involved

If we had evidence the three did ecstasy that night, or that the 3 regularly partied together that might be more convincing but we have no evidence of the sort. We do not even have any evidence AK did ectassy ever in her life.

Drugs are drugs ... they mess up people's minds. There is a reason that drugs are illegal, and there is a reason that Sollecito swore off ever using drugs again after the night of the murder. knox and Sollecito admitted to using pot or hashish, but they are both proven liars, so there's no reason to believe this. It's quite possibly another self serving statement in the sense that pot explains their messed up memories, but it doesn't mean that they were so out of it that the drugs could be related to the murder.

Knox and Guede had partied together, Knox and Sollecito had partied together. There is no giant leap in terms of Knox partying with both at the same time.

 

[Yellow]

BBM
What does that mean ... "wanting to save face"? Is the suggestion that after Knox and Sollecito were arrested, the prosector's office was unable to back down even if there was no evidence? If that's the case, why was the prosecutor's office able to back down and release Patrick?

The defense was heard throughout the trial. They did not have to wait until the appeal to present a case.

The prosecutor made this an intl spectacle w Ak as key suspect within a week of the murder. Once she made that alleged statement, they stuck to their case and failed to realize or neglected to acknowledge inconsistencies in their own evidence. When you are doing a scientific test for example and the machine blares out "too low for testing" the logical thing to do is to question that evidence rather than stuck to your guns. So whether that is due to sheer incompetence or a dog headed desire not to admit a mistake I am not sure. They had an alibi for PL, they did not have one for AK so so long as they had some evidence against her, once this case erupted in the intl media w that silly sex story, they would have looked like fools if they admitted this was just a run of the mill burglary gone bad.

 

[otto]

The prosecutor made this an intl spectacle w Ak as key suspect within a week of the murder. Once she made that alleged statement, they stuck to their case and failed to realize or neglected to acknowledge inconsistencies in their own evidence. When you are doing a scientific test for example and the machine blares out "too low for testing" the logical thing to do is to question that evidence rather than stuck to your guns. So whether that is due to sheer incompetence or a dog headed desire not to admit a mistake I am not sure. They had an alibi for PL, they did not have one for AK so so long as they had some evidence against her, once this case erupted in the intl media w that silly sex story, they would have looked like fools if they admitted this was just a run of the mill burglary gone bad.

I see. The prosecutor's office is corrupt. We've heard that before, but there is no proof that it is true. It's merely another attempt to excuse Knox from participation in the murder by alleging that the Italian Justice system was corrupt when Patrick was released due to lack of evidence and Guede, Knox and Sollecito were arreseted based on evidence.

The corrupt prosecutor's office was eager to put Sollecito in jail because somehow this means the office saves face? I don't get it.

 

[Yellow]

Drugs are drugs ... they mess up people's minds. There is a reason that drugs are illegal, and there is a reason that Sollecito swore off ever using drugs again after the night of the murder. knox and Sollecito admitted to using pot or hashish, but they are both proven liars, so there's no reason to believe this. It's quite possibly another self serving statement in the sense that pot explains their messed up memories, but it doesn't mean that they were so out of it that the drugs could be related to the murder.

Knox and Guede had partied together, Knox and Sollecito had partied together. There is no giant leap in terms of Knox partying with both at the same time.

That is all sheer speculation, by that logic we can also assume MK and RG also partied together so maybe we can speculate that RG and Mk did meet up (which I do not believe to be true at all)

There are dfferent levels of drugs as well, why the effort to legalize pot and why allow it for use even in children for medical reasons? Pot is quite different from a drug like LSD, ectasy, etc. I would suspect nearly all drugged fueled motives without any underlying motives do not involve pot in isolation. Pot is also legal in many countries, including in some states here like CO.

With all these statements, you imply that the lack of evidence or their alleged lying somehow supports nefarious intentions. the prosecutor is not even making some of these arguments so I do not know why this is even relevant.

 

[Yellow]

First, that case involved known ecstasy, there is no evidence of that drug or any drug other than pot here. That distinction is key. Second, those quick snippets do not indicate whether this defendant had known psychological problems nor do they indicate the preexisting relationship between him and roommate. We have absence of info not absence of evidence. Third, that cases involved a single male defendant not one in which 2 other people get themselves involved

If we had evidence the three did ecstasy that night, or that the 3 regularly partied together that might be more convincing but we have no evidence of the sort. We do not even have any evidence AK did ectassy ever in her life.

There is also another key difference between the two cases, in the rome case you have the guy stabbing his friend while be was sleeping, with the guy having no recollection, the guy luckily survived. The suspect did no other act than stabbing. They did not rape nor stage a crime scene as has been alleged here. I would suspect few drug fueled murders involve secondary conscious acts like staging a crime scene or rape.

Not even the prosecutor is alleging hallucinogens here let alone 3 people getting them all at the same time.

 

[Yellow]

I see. The prosecutor's office is corrupt. We've heard that before, but there is no proof that it is true. It's merely another attempt to excuse Knox from participation in the murder by alleging that the Italian Justice system was corrupt when Patrick was released due to lack of evidence and Guede, Knox and Sollecito were arreseted based on evidence.

The corrupt prosecutor's office was eager to put Sollecito in jail because somehow this means the office saves face? I don't get it.

If anyone could explain how the alleged murder weapon would not have the victims blood on it, nor match the cuts, this would be more convincing, also, how could there be footprints in hallway but not in murder room and even if they were blood, why don't they have MK DNA in them?

It is not anyone's burden to prove whether or not the prosecutors office is corrupt or not but it is their duty to prove murder.

It is also not necesaaily corruption to view facts only one way. Sometimes we see one sided looks at the evidence here with no corruption invoked. Pride does not equate w corruption.

I would also add that there are over 900 cases of the ECHR ruling against Italy's practices, more than any other country In the EU. Just something to consider.

 

[SMK]

It is a well-established fact that there is value in intuition in investigative police work and in the role of judges (see Hutchenson, The Judgment Intuitive).

Perhaps there was an initial intuition as to the Guede, Knox, Sollecito scenario, and some have stuck with it.

 

[SMK]

If anyone could explain how the alleged murder weapon would not have the victims blood on it, nor match the cuts, this would be more convincing, also, how could there be footprints in hallway but not in murder room and even if they were blood, why don't they have MK DNA in them?

It is not anyone's burden to prove whether or not the prosecutors office is corrupt or not but it is their duty to prove murder.

But if all this is SO absurd, why didn't the Italian Supreme court simply throw the case out?

 

[keybasher]

That prosecution theory of a drug fueled rage murder over some hash / pot is absurd imo. When i smoked pot i became a couch potato and lazy. Even ecstasy wouldn't be the kind of drug that would turn someone aggressive and murder another. It is a happy social drug you have happy feelings towards others hugging and talking to strangers. Maybe if they used crack, coke, meth, drugs that cause extreme paranoia then that's different. Im glad ak is back in the US Italy's justice system is wacky

Sent from my Evo 3D CDMA using Tapatalk 2

 

[otto]

That prosecution theory of a drug fueled rage murder over some hash / pot is absurd imo. When i smoked pot i became a couch potato and lazy. Even ecstasy wouldn't be the kind of drug that would turn someone aggressive and murder another. It is a happy social drug you have happy feelings towards others hugging and talking to strangers. Maybe if they used crack, coke, meth, drugs that cause extreme paranoia then that's different. Im glad ak is back in the US Italy's justice system is wacky

Sent from my Evo 3D CDMA using Tapatalk 2

So perhaps the US student that was using the happy drug ecstasy when he stabbed his friend was lying about the drugs he used, or is there a possibility that happy, couch potato drugs can potentially lead to violence?

 

[Yellow]

But if all this is SO absurd, why didn't the Italian Supreme court simply throw the case out?

The SC cannot fact find and maybe it is the case that the appeals court should have made more detailed discussion of the other evidence, a legal mistake. Recall that the SC is concerned about this case being a precedent for future cases. If they let the appeals court here make a ruling without Discussing the totality of the circumstances, that is a bad precedent to set for other cases.

The appeals court last time probably might have felt all these other stories are so silly so why not just show why the primary evidence is discredited and overturn the convictions that way. the SC sent it back and said make sure You still cannot get to a murder conviction using the other circumstantial case. They will discuss that this time and I think in all likelihood will come to the same result.

It is similar to that Ryan case in Missouri that was overturned in a way, there the appeals court first said for the trial court to make a ruling on whether the case is still sound in light of new evidence, the trial court said yes, even in light of new evidence taking away the statements of two witnesses, the circumstantial case is strong enough to suport a conviction. The appeals court disagreed, and Ryan was let out.

 

[SMK]

Drugs are drugs ... they mess up people's minds. There is a reason that drugs are illegal, and there is a reason that Sollecito swore off ever using drugs again after the night of the murder. knox and Sollecito admitted to using pot or hashish, but they are both proven liars, so there's no reason to believe this. It's quite possibly another self serving statement in the sense that pot explains their messed up memories, but it doesn't mean that they were so out of it that the drugs could be related to the murder.

Knox and Guede had partied together, Knox and Sollecito had partied together. There is no giant leap in terms of Knox partying with both at the same time.

I have known people within my family who have reacted extremely adversely to marijuana.

Sometimes very young people have as yet undetected chemical, psychological, or personality disordered problems which since undiagnosed put them at special risk for this type of adverse reaction. IMO Knox and Sollecito may have been vulnerable. Literature supports this as well:

Cannabis and violent crime

We present a series of 12 cases of violent crime, which were all committed under the influence of cannabis in Geneva, Switzerland, between 1996 and 2000.

The crimes were committed by eleven males and one female, with a mean age of 26 years, who were using only cannabis at the time they acted. Most of them were chronic users.

Five subjects had a past psychiatric history. Five had a personality disorder. Only three had been sentenced in the past for violent acts. At the time of the aggression, all of them exhibited adverse and acute effects of cannabis. All of them were judged by the court to be partially or totally non-responsible. Three cases are presented in more detail.

Our data suggests that cannabis could have a specific role in the development of violent behaviour patterns and that detection of its adverse effects should be systematic in criminal responsibility evaluation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12741654

 

[Steely Dan]

All of that is just spin and op/ed from an anonymous blogger. They twist peoples words and make things up but don't show you the actual words of each witness so you can judge for yourself. I noticed the footnote links don't even work.

BBM

They work for me.

The site was created 6 months ago.

I tried a bunch of them and they all worked.

I haven't read Fabio Marzi's (postal police/first on the scene) testimony because google won't translate it <modsnip>

This is from one of the footnote links; http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/68737/I-find-it-hard-to-kill-a-fly

...Fellow police officer Fabio Marzi said Sollecito and Knox were affectionate in the moments after police arrived. But Sollecito insisted he was only trying to comfort Knox....

 

[Steely Dan]

that site contains numerous errors (lies) as well... one example i posted about last week is an assertion that greg hampikian is no longer involved with this case (the implication on TJMK is that he's "seen the light" so to speak). i posted a link to a very recent presentation he made in atlanta last month where he once again asserted AK's innocence.

Do you have links for those assertions. I missed that post.