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

[SMK]

The RISK ist to get a live sentence!

They would had spoken after the first conviction!

after the first conviction, they had their eyes on the appeal and aquittal. Why admit to something that might get them a good 20 years and make them look dreadful to their parents, the Kerchers, and the University?

 

[DerKritiker2011]

after the first conviction, they had their eyes on the appeal and aquittal. Why admit to something that might get them a good 20 years and make them look dreadful to their parents, the Kerchers, and the University?

No, thats unworldly. If they got a sentence of 25/26 years and the prosecution demands for a life sentence, then if they are guilty in something, they would had spoken.

The pressure is extremely !

They had spent for 4 years in jail. They know how it be for life. No way, that they will take the risk.

 

[SMK]

No, thats unworldly. If they got a sentence of 25/26 years and the prosecution demands for a life sentence, then if they are guilty in something, they would had spoken.

The pressure is extremely !

They had spent for 4 years in jail. They know how it be for life. No way, that they will take the risk.

Yes, I realize this. But their lawyers have told them they will be acquitted.

I suppose I am going to have to accept that my middle of the road theory - which makes so much sense to me -
simply makes no sense to anyone else.

I cannot seem to get across that if you open the door to a criminal action, and that action winds up in murder, you are in massive, massive legal trouble. You are liable. Hence, the cutting of the bra , the traces left in the cleanup, the simulated break in, the calls, the holes in the alibis. Ah, well.

 

[Myvice]

after the first conviction, they had their eyes on the appeal and aquittal. Why admit to something that might get them a good 20 years and make them look dreadful to their parents, the Kerchers, and the University?

Especially when they both had families that could pay for attorneys and good PR. Guede didn't have that.

 

[SMK]

Especially when they both had families that could pay for attorneys and good PR. Guede didn't have that.

Exactly. Those who believe the Ramseys and McCanns were also guilty believe that their respective "PR campaigns" also took on a life of their own: How can you ever come clean when there has been an international campaign on your behalf?

 

[quesarita]

Yes, I realize this. But their lawyers have told them they will be acquitted.

I suppose I am going to have to accept that my middle of the road theory - which makes so much sense to me -
simply makes no sense to anyone else.

I cannot seem to get across that if you open the door to a criminal action, and that action winds up in murder, you are in massive, massive legal trouble. You are liable. Hence, the cutting of the bra , the traces left in the cleanup, the simulated break in, the calls, the holes in the alibis. Ah, well.

I understand it, but I can't help believe that once they'd already lost one trial and had spent a couple of years in prison, facing decades more, that if there was ANY pressure on them at all to give up one of the others in some way, they would have done it.

 

[sherlockh]

<modsnip>

The quote I gave is very clear, too. Also the lawyers do remark that there is no closing time given for Amanda's interrogation in the summary, only the opening. 1:45 represents the beginning of official interrogation, after Donnino arrived. There is no time given for the finish in this testimony, only Donnino's remark that there was brief pause after which Mignini took over.

Giobbi testifies Amanda had been interrogated 3-4 hours daily, and the overnight interrogation was "the longest" starting around 10 pm and halted around 5am after which Mignini took over.

The length of the interrogation, not providing her with a lawyer despite the fact she was a suspect, the lack of recording, the manipulative remarks Donnino included during the interrogation, the screams Giobbi testified about, the emotional breakdown and shock others testified about all confirm that the interrogation was coercive.

It all confirms the account of the interrogation that Amanda made in writing immediately the day after and in even more detail in her letter on 9 November.

I have tried to find those minutes but they do not exist on the internet. There is only a mentioning by Mignini that they start at 1am. That would mean the interrogation was even shorter till the accusation. Mignini says the same as the interpreter that at 1:45am AK becomes a person informed of the facts. Her status changed because of the accusation. We only have the 1:45am statement which is the accusation. I have no idea why anyone would think the 1:45am statement are just some minutes, and why AK would have to sign the minutes. Anyway, Mignini makes it clear and at 1am the minutes of the interrogation start and by 1:45am the accusation was made. Nobody in court ever questioned that the 1:45am statement was made at some other time. I can imagine this would have been a funny question
<modsnip>
http://amada-knox-data.wikispaces.com/Mignini-CNN-interview

 

[Myvice]

I understand it, but I can't help believe that once they'd already lost one trial and had spent a couple of years in prison, facing decades more, that if there was ANY pressure on them at all to give up one of the others in some way, they would have done it.

For that to happen they would have to admit their guilt. That won't happen, IMO.

The way it stands now is if they're found guilty in this trial they still have people that will see them as innocent so why would they admit guilt?

 

[SMK]

Just to wrap up with some concluding remarks on my theory:

The idea that Knox and Sollectio opened the door to what occurred on Nov 1, 2007 is a synthesis:

It preserves essential elements of the Hendry lone wolf bedroom scene analysis while accommodating some of the earlier Massei-Micheli assertions such as:

• holes in alibis, oddities of phone calls
• traces left in clean up
• the simulation of the break-in/burglary
• the cutting of the bra after death and 'staging' of rape (to lead investigators away from the non-sexual/non-robbery motives of an attack (altercation) and away from the involvement of a female perpatrator

It also leaves intact psychological anomalies noticed by original investigators and statement analysis; as well as criminal and legal culpability of a formidable, and not trivial, kind.

OK, I'm done now!:seeya:

 

[SMK]

For that to happen they would have to admit their guilt. That won't happen, IMO.

The way it stands now is if they're found guilty in this trial they still have people that will see them as innocent so why would they admit guilt?

Agreed. Nothing would be gained for them now by admitting any form of culpability. Better to go with a full innocence campaign of which masses of people are fully convinced. (just theorizing)

 

[SMK]

I understand it, but I can't help believe that once they'd already lost one trial and had spent a couple of years in prison, facing decades more, that if there was ANY pressure on them at all to give up one of the others in some way, they would have done it.

As Guede has never admitted to robbery/rape or murder, and as the American media and many influential people have spent time, money, and given of their expertise to defend total innocence, it would be a kind of social suicide to re-visit any ill-conceived plans they made 6 years ago which ended in mayhem.

The chances of acquittal are strong; the likelihood of extradition, weak.

I would not expect anyone this deep end to come clean on anything now. And if my theory is correct (I can intuit, but not be 100% certain, of course) they don't.

 

[quesarita]

As Guede has never admitted to robbery/rape or murder, and as the American media and many influential people have spent time, money, and given of their expertise to defend total innocence, it would be a kind of social suicide to re-visit any ill-conceived plans they made 6 years ago which ended in mayhem.

The chances of acquittal are strong; the likelihood of extradition, weak.

With all due respect, weak extradition only applies to Amanda. I'm not sure why if you are so sure of their guilt you think the chances of acquittal are strong. I could possibly see Amanda following your line of reasoning, but not Raffaele, and definitely not Rudy.

 

[SMK]

With all due respect, weak extradition only applies to Amanda. I'm not sure why if you are so sure of their guilt you think the chances of acquittal are strong. I could possibly see Amanda following your line of reasoning, but not Raffaele, and definitely not Rudy.

I'm not sure of their guilt: I built a theory which was a synthesis of two other theories. I theorize that this is the manner in which things may have unfolded.

I don't know if acquittal is in the offing or not. I think the defense have probably told their clients "there is nothing" of evidence as they told the Italian newspapers. It may be as so many scoff at the evidence but the lay judges will not: don't know. I think Rudy has as much reason to be silent as Amanda- Raffaele is an enigma all around.

 

[quesarita]

I appreciate your theories because I'm not blindly convinced she is innocent. I just don't see anything that would let me as a juror convict her or Raffaele of either murder or conspiracy.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

"Q: Can hair be affected by cross-reacting substances such as over-the-counter medications?
A: Enzyme-immunoassay antibodies (EIA), similar to those used to test urine, are used for the initial drug screening in hair; therefore the potential for substances such as over-the-counter medications to cause a false positive screening result does exist. To eliminate the possibility of reporting a false-positive result due to cross-reactivity, our laboratory performs Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) for all specimens that screen positive. " link

This site has a good discussion of threshold values and false positives, mostly with respect to urine testing (which is similar to testing hair, but with some sampling differences). Under barbituates, naproxen and ibuprofen are listed as false positives. Under opiates, poppy seeds are list as one of a number of substances giving a false positive.

With respect to threshold values of opiates, the values of the screen and the confirmatory test are identical, 2000 nanograms per milliliter. Therefore, if the authorities used the same two threshold values (by no means a certainty), then a positive screen result followed by a negative confirmatory result could not possibly be explained on the basis of not having enough material. The negative confirmatory result would have to be the result of the presence of an interfering substance. Therefore, I think that Barbie's report is very questionable.

 

[whoanellie]

"Q: Can hair be affected by cross-reacting substances such as over-the-counter medications?
A: Enzyme-immunoassay antibodies (EIA), similar to those used to test urine, are used for the initial drug screening in hair; therefore the potential for substances such as over-the-counter medications to cause a false positive screening result does exist. To eliminate the possibility of reporting a false-positive result due to cross-reactivity, our laboratory performs Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) for all specimens that screen positive. " link

This site has a good discussion of threshold values and false positives, mostly with respect to urine testing (which is similar to testing hair, but with some sampling differences). Under barbituates, naproxen and ibuprofen are listed as false positives. Under opiates, poppy seeds are list as one of a number of substances giving a false positive.

With respect to threshold values of opiates, the values of the screen and the confirmatory test are identical, 2000 nanograms per milliliter. Therefore, if the authorities used the same two threshold values (by no means a certainty), then a positive screen result followed by a negative confirmatory result could not possibly be explained on the basis of not having enough material. The negative confirmatory result would have to be the result of the presence of an interfering substance. Therefore, I think that Barbie's report is very questionable.

Thanks for all of the technical details. Whether Barbie got bad info herself or just garbled the explanation, I still would put my money on a positive immunoassay and a failure to detect anything by GC/MS. I couldn't find any mention of a drug test on Amanda or Raffaele in Massei although there is much mention of their use of drugs.

 

[Amber29]

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:

SMK

You actually were responding to aa9511 not me.

I actually totally understand your thinking. I can not claim to know what went down that night.

Luckily jurors don't have to agree with the prosecutors. If only american jurors had to write reasonings the way Italian judges do, we would know more about what has gone through their heads. I think we would all be surprised to learn why jurors reached their verdict. I mean we sometimes get after verdict interviews but I think it would be totally different if they had it give a detail description of their version of the way a crime occurred.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Especially when they both had families that could pay for attorneys and good PR. Guede didn't have that.

Guede had two very good lawyers working for him pro-bono. Walter Biscotti was a well known local attorney before this case.

 

[Myvice]

Guede had two very good lawyers working for him pro-bono. Walter Biscotti was a well known local attorney before this case.

I wonder why he wasn't portrayed as an aspiring chef in a foreign country that was young, frightened and alone.

The pro bono must not have included PR.

 

[MichaelSmith]

I wonder why he wasn't portrayed as an aspiring chef in a foreign country that was young, frightened and alone.

The pro bono must not have included PR.

Biscotti was doing media interviews and going on talk shows all the time. That's PR for his client isn't it?