Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#8

[SMK]

SMK, so would you agree that Rudy is proven to be a murderer in this case and that Amanda's and/or Raffaele's possible peripheral roles are not known or describable by Rudy?

I believe Rudy robbed, sexually assaulted, and strangled /stabbed MK. I think if RS and AK had a role, it was giving Guede access to the cottage, with possibly telling him to rob/assault Kercher (in a heat of anger after an argument in the afternoon /with subsequent staging and simulation - and which is the US, at least, would be a very serious involvement in a murder, even if you never meant one to occur - easily landing you 25-30 behind bars ). Under this hypothetical scenario, this role is known to Guede but he will never admit it, since he claims someone else killed MK.

 

[SMK]

That's unlikely. Nobody will take the risk of a life sentence or 26/30 years in this case.

We have to look at the pressure they are still in.

I guess because I am from the US, I view this as very serious (see my post to Quesarita above for the scenario) - in the US, you would get 25-30 years at least for this peripheral role (I know a case far more mild where this was the case- first offense, teen girl was in the car while her friends robbed/shot a man without her knowledge - peripheral accessory to murder and still 30+ years; another case again involving a teenage girl - her boyfriend attacked/killed her father; she gave him access to the apt. Both got life sentences).

 

[DerKritiker2011]

I believe Rudy robbed, sexually assaulted, and strangled /stabbed MK. I think if RS and AK had a role, it was giving Guede access to the cottage, with possibly telling him to rob/assault Kercher (in a heat of anger after an argument in the afternoon /with subsequent staging and simulation - and which is the US, at least, would be a very serious involvement in a murder, even if you never meant one to occur - easily landing you 25-30 behind bars ). Under this hypothetical scenario, this role is known to Guede but he will never admit it, since he claims someone else killed MK.

It's pure fantasy, without any evidence.

This would be possible with one person not by two, pure fanatasy

I guess because I am from the US, I view this as very serious (see my post to Quesarita above for the scenario) - in the US, you would get 25-30 years at least for this peripheral role (I know a case far more mild where this was the case- first offense, teen girl was in the car while her friends robbed/shot a man without her knowledge - peripheral accessory to murder and still 30+ years; another case again involving a teenage girl - her boyfriend attacked/killed her father; she gave him access to the apt. Both got life sentences).

I think this is not the full story. I think, the teenenage girl had ordered the murder, gave not only access to the apt.

And we were in Italy not in USA.

 

[SMK]

It's pure fantasy, without any evidence.

This would be possible with one person not by two, pure fanatasy




I think this is not the full story. I think, the teenenage girl had ordered the murder, gave not only access to the apt.

And we were in Italy not in USA.

1 Not pure fantasy: There are indications and information that can lead to such an inference; it's not pulled out of thin air.
2. I think it's more likely with two people than with one.
3. Yes, I guess the girl wanted the murder to occur. But if you want any assault to occur which ends in murder, you are in deep trouble.
4. Are you certain Knox and Sollecito know Italy would give them light sentences? Maybe they feel their best bet is to "admit to nothing". There are always other appeals.

 

[DerKritiker2011]

1 Not pure fantasy: There are indications and information that can lead to such an inference; it's not pulled out of thin air.

No I see nothing.

2. I think it's more likely with two people than with one.

Why? Could You explain?

3. Yes, I guess the girl wanted the murder to occur. But if you want any assault to occur which ends in murder, you are in deep trouble.

In trouble, yes, but I don't think you get a life sentence.

4. Are you certain Knox and Sollecito know Italy would give them light sentences? Maybe they feel their best bet is to "admit to nothing". There are always other appeals.

That's the risk! And 26 ... 30 yerars inprison is also enough.

 

[SMK]

No I see nothing.




Why? Could You explain?



In trouble, yes, but I don't think you get a life sentence.



That's the risk! And 26 ... 30 yerars inprison is also enough.

1. I see much that is amiss. Explained over the past few weeks here.

2. I believe two people can feed off each other, creating a boldness that one person does not have on their own (as police often say of a pair of criminals, "Neither one would have done this on their own; but together they created a third person, and he is the one who did it."

3. No, not 25-30, but they are hoping for total acquittal in any case.

 

[otto]

Because in real life when you are constantly bombarded with information about events that happened a long time ago your memory becomes clouded. It is common for people to forget things that didn't happen, and to "remember" things that other people insist happened often enough. Reality becomes blurred.

It is called conditioning.

Memory is not like a tape recorder, the information stored in your memory is constantly changing and altering with time. It is not a fixed thing, and accuracy can become distorted or molded by outside influences and time. Memory does not store a specific fact, rather in stores an impression that is defined by relationships with other impressions. If those other impressions change over time, what you remember about the event will also change. Memory is relative, not absolute, and this is something that most people can't really grasp.

People are not necessarily "lieing" when their recollection does not jive with reality, it is just that their perception of that reality has changed over time.

This is why an eye-witness report or testimony should always be taken with a pinch of salt unless corroborated independently by something else, especially when that testimony relates to something that happened a long time ago.

As to who AK called and when, there is no way that information is still accurate in her memory. If you are getting hung up with what she does or does not remember, you are literally chasing ghosts. By now the only thing she will remember is the general story of what has been reported and what she has been told. The only accurate information about any calls are actual phone records, and this pretty much applies to every person on the planet.

Can Knox be excused for not remembering the facts? I don't think so. If we are now making excuses for Knox because she's screwed up in the retelling of her lies, can we not assume that it was never a truth?

In addition to living the experience, Knox also kept a daily diary of each day she was in prison ... each day that she was in court. This is no longer a memory issue. She has more references than any one of us. If knox can't keep the facts straight, something other than faulty memory is at play.

 

[quesarita]

I believe Rudy robbed, sexually assaulted, and strangled /stabbed MK. I think if RS and AK had a role, it was giving Guede access to the cottage, with possibly telling him to rob/assault Kercher (in a heat of anger after an argument in the afternoon /with subsequent staging and simulation - and which is the US, at least, would be a very serious involvement in a murder, even if you never meant one to occur - easily landing you 25-30 behind bars ). Under this hypothetical scenario, this role is known to Guede but he will never admit it, since he claims someone else killed MK.

Rudy could have said, "Amanda gave me the key, and then go into his story of having consensual sex with Meredith, ipod on the toilet, someone else running in and stabbing her.:
Or, "Amanda was holding her while I had sex with her, then all of a sudden, Bam! She pulls out a knife and cuts Meredith's throat. I didn't kill her."
Instead of "I think I saw her walking away from the cottage when I looked out the window".

And knowing that Meredith was complaining to her family and friends about Amanda does NOT give any indication about how Amanda felt about Meredith. As far as I know, the only "witness" to an argument between the two girls that day was Rudy, who everyone feels is a liar. Please correct me if there is more evidence to Amanda's feelings about Meredith or an actual argument.

 

[Amber29]

Can Knox be excused for not remembering the facts? I don't think so. If we are now making excuses for Knox because she's screwed up in the retelling of her lies, can we not assume that it was never a truth?

In addition to living the experience, Knox also kept a daily diary of each day she was in prison ... each day that she was in court. This is no longer a memory issue. She has more references than any one of us. If knox can't keep the facts straight, something other than faulty memory is at play.

Yes I agree. "Websleuths" that follow her case should not know more than her.

 

[aa9511]

Seriously though, to convict someone of murder there has to be much more than suspicious behavior or phone calls.
If Amanda and Raffaele participated in the murder, there would be plenty of their presence inside the bedroom where Meredith was killed; the bedroom was clearly not cleaned from the photos.
If Amanda was involved but did not participate, she would have known about Rudy, why not implicate him instead of someone else?
If she didn't implicate him because she thought he would tell of her involvement, why didn't he do that once he was arrested? I mean, lay out the crime in a convincing way that fits with the evidence, instead of the ramblings that did get him a lesser sentence but still didn't lead to a clear picture of that night or definitive proof of the other parties' guilt.
Why wouldn't Raffaele or Amanda, facing 25 years in prison, rat out each other at some point?
Why do any scenarios that involve Amanda and Raffaele have to be loaded with speculative motives - made-up fights or satanic sex?

Speaking for myself, I have written very lengthy posts regarding the point of why didn't who rat out who. I think they are either in the last thread, or the one before that.

For that reason, I'm not going to repeat what I wrote because it would just take too long.

Maybe some others will have a go at it.

 

[aa9511]

That's unlikely. Nobody will take the risk of a life sentence or 26/30 years in this case.

We have to look at the pressure they are still in.

ITA. We have disagreed about other points, but I totally agree with this one.

I have said before that Amanda and RS would have come clean a long time ago if they had a "peripheral" role. It is no easy task to be on trial for murder, not only on trial but ultimately convicted, which they were. I think, no I'm sure, they would have put out all the stops before then if they could have.

It is only one of 2 things, IMO:

1. They are completely innocent.
2. They were deeply involved and actively particpated in the death of Meredith.

 

[SMK]

Rudy could have said, "Amanda gave me the key, and then go into his story of having consensual sex with Meredith, ipod on the toilet, someone else running in and stabbing her.:
Or, "Amanda was holding her while I had sex with her, then all of a sudden, Bam! She pulls out a knife and cuts Meredith's throat. I didn't kill her."
Instead of "I think I saw her walking away from the cottage when I looked out the window".

And knowing that Meredith was complaining to her family and friends about Amanda does NOT give any indication about how Amanda felt about Meredith. As far as I know, the only "witness" to an argument between the two girls that day was Rudy, who everyone feels is a liar. Please correct me if there is more evidence to Amanda's feelings about Meredith or an actual argument.

Yes, Rudy might have said all these things. Perhaps the scenario isn't true - or if it is, all 3 of them maintain silence and innocence (Guede sure has done this: has admitted to no crime, really, only being there). Shorter sentence for Guede; possible acquittal for Knox and Sollecito.

No, we have no proof that Knox was seething over Kercher.

We do know there were some complaints and that Kercher basically ignored her requests to be together for Halloween or the night after.

These kinds of things - especially when one feels that a new chapter of life is due one in Perugia - can cause rancor.

Knox's proclivity to be "one of the boys" (she admits this in her memoir) might cause her anger to take a more male form. Drugs and drinking might add to this. Psychological transference and identifying with Sollecito's fantasies as well.

All so much speculation: Only add to this that the prosecution believes there is evidence that they were involved and that they staged a burglary.

 

[SMK]

ITA. We have disagreed about other points, but I totally agree with this one.

I have said before that Amanda and RS would have come clean a long time ago if they had a "peripheral" role. It is no easy task to be on trial for murder, not only on trial but ultimately convicted, which they were. I think, no I'm sure, they would have put out all the stops before then if they could have.

It is only one of 2 things, IMO:

1. They are completely innocent.
2. They were deeply involved and actively particpated in the death of Meredith.

I know you feel this way, Amber, but my theory of "a peripheral role" DOES have them legally deeply involved and participating.

To suggest a robbery and sex assault against one's own flatmate, and to give a known criminal a key, and then afterward to simulate a crime scene and lie to police and create false alibis, is to me criminal intent and DEEP legal and criminal liability and involvement and carrying 20+ years prison sentences. Why not keep quiet with a chance for a full and final acquittal after only 4 yrs served? And everyone KNOWS Guede was a partner in murder - no one thinks Knox and Sollecito acted alone.

Do you see how I view this? lease:

 

[aa9511]

I believe Rudy robbed, sexually assaulted, and strangled /stabbed MK. I think if RS and AK had a role, it was giving Guede access to the cottage, with possibly telling him to rob/assault Kercher (in a heat of anger after an argument in the afternoon /with subsequent staging and simulation - and which is the US, at least, would be a very serious involvement in a murder, even if you never meant one to occur - easily landing you 25-30 behind bars ). Under this hypothetical scenario, this role is known to Guede but he will never admit it, since he claims someone else killed MK.

SMK, in a hypothetical and not going on the evidence in this case, that might make sense before they were listed as suspects and before they knew for sure that murder charges would be brought against them

I just don't see them keeping that to themselves even while being on trial for THE murder. And even being in jail awaiting the trial.

 

[SMK]

SMK, in a hypothetical and not going on the evidence in this case, that might make sense before they were listed as suspects and before they knew for sure that murder charges would be brought against them

I just don't see them keeping that to themselves even while being on trial for THE murder. And even being in jail awaiting the trial.

OK, understood but see my above post to Amber---going for acquittal, why admit to anything at all? Four years served is better than 20.

 

[quesarita]

True story: when I was in college and living in a cottage with another woman (who at that point was spending all her time at her boyfriend's), I came home late one night, walked through the front room into my bedroom and it was completely torn apart. Every piece of clothing on the floor, dresser drawers pulled out and dumped, etc. I didn't feel alarm or call the police. Instead, I called my roommate and asked if she'd been looking for something in my room. Sounds unbelievable, but that's what I did.
She immediately said, "It's a break in! Get out of the house, we'll be right there!" Sure enough, a burglar had climbed through her bedroom window (I never noticed the draft from the open window even though it was winter), stolen the jewelry from the top of her dresser (but touched nothing else in her room) and thrown everything around my room (but nothing of mine was missing).
It could easily appear that I "staged" the disorder in my room to cover the stolen jewelry from her room. I even had a brand new in the box car stereo in the front room that wasn't taken.
Fortunately, the burglar also took a 6-pack of beer out of the refrigerator, drank one, and left fingerprints that way that led to his arrest.
Why wasn't I more alarmed? Why didn't I call the police right away? Why was my room tossed and hers not? Why wasn't anything of mine taken? That's just the way it happened.

 

[SMK]

True story: when I was in college and living in a cottage with another woman (who at that point was spending all her time at her boyfriend's), I came home late one night, walked through the front room into my bedroom and it was completely torn apart. Every piece of clothing on the floor, dresser drawers pulled out and dumped, etc. I didn't feel alarm or call the police. Instead, I called my roommate and asked if she'd been looking for something in my room. Sounds unbelievable, but that's what I did.
She immediately said, "It's a break in! Get out of the house, we'll be right there!" Sure enough, a burglar had climbed through her bedroom window (I never noticed the draft from the open window even though it was winter), stolen the jewelry from the top of her dresser (but touched nothing else in her room) and thrown everything around my room (but nothing of mine was missing).
It could easily appear that I "staged" the disorder in my room to cover the stolen jewelry from her room. I even had a brand new in the box car stereo in the front room that wasn't taken.
Fortunately, the burglar also took a 6-pack of beer out of the refrigerator, drank one, and left fingerprints that way that led to his arrest.
Why wasn't I more alarmed? Why didn't I call the police right away? Why was my room tossed and hers not? Why wasn't anything of mine taken? That's just the way it happened.

OK, this is understandable. You were not expecting a robbery, so didn't "see" one. And this colors your view of Amanda's behavior - just as my experience in the past with a family member giving a known druggie/criminal access to another family member's house to rob (when they were supposed to have been on vacation; an unexpected encounter and assault ensued) has colored mine. We both project our past experience onto Amanda.

 

[aa9511]

It's pure fantasy, without any evidence.

This would be possible with one person not by two, pure fanatasy




I think this is not the full story. I think, the teenenage girl had ordered the murder, gave not only access to the apt.

And we were in Italy not in USA.

That is very interesting.

Can you elaborate on that? What is your theory?

 

[DerKritiker2011]

Can you elaborate on that? What is your theory?

I've talked about the case in the U.S., not this one.

 

[DerKritiker2011]

OK, understood but see my above post to Amber---going for acquittal, why admit to anything at all? Four years served is better than 20.

The RISK ist to get a live sentence!

They would had spoken after the first conviction!