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

[Harmony 2]

OT
This is why Amanda didn't attend the funeral:

Nov. 6, 2007

Knox is arrested in connection with the slaying. Also arrested are Knox's then-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito of Italy; and the Congolese owner of a Perugia pub where Knox worked, Diya "Patrick" Lumumba.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/timeline-amanda-knox-trial/

Nov. 20, 2007

Ivory Coast national Rudy Hermann Guede is arrested in Germany after an international manhunt.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/timeline-amanda-knox-trial/

Dec. 14, 2007
The coffin of Meredith Kercher is carried out after a funeral service at the Parish Church of Croydon, South London, Friday, Dec. 14, 2007.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/12507386.html

 

[redheadedgal]

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

b/c he wasn't?

The pro bono must not have included PR.

oh boo hoo. i guess that's what one doesn't get when his dna is found inside the murder victim!

MOMK/wiki says he was adopted by a wealthy family from perugia. the site also mentions there was a breakdown in in the relationship b/w RG and his new parents due to his truancy, habitual lying, poor work ethic etc ... so, who's fault would it be for them not offering to pay his legal fees, and forcing his legal representation to be provided by the state?

Murder of Meredith Kercher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Rudy_Hermann_Guede

 

[Amber29]

OT
This is why Amanda didn't attend the funeral:

Nov. 6, 2007

Knox is arrested in connection with the slaying. Also arrested are Knox's then-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito of Italy; and the Congolese owner of a Perugia pub where Knox worked, Diya "Patrick" Lumumba.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/timeline-amanda-knox-trial/

Nov. 20, 2007

Ivory Coast national Rudy Hermann Guede is arrested in Germany after an international manhunt.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/timeline-amanda-knox-trial/

Dec. 14, 2007
The coffin of Meredith Kercher is carried out after a funeral service at the Parish Church of Croydon, South London, Friday, Dec. 14, 2007.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/12507386.html

I completely understand why she didn't attend her London funeral. I think it was the memorial service in Perugia that some people questioned.

 

[geevee]

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.

I just don't understand why AK would give him access to the cottage, if she wanted MK to be robbed, AK had access and could have stolen anything she wanted and deflected attention because there were other roommates. Aside from MK thinking AK was sloppy and a bad housekeeper, there's nothing else that leads anyone to think they had a bad relationship (that I've seen) that would cause her to want harm to come to MK.

Putting someone AK didn't know well at all (RG) into the picture would only increase her chances of getting caught, it just doesn't make any reasonable sense to me.

That's what bothers me about the trial so much, so little of the prosecution's reasoning is logical, esp. about the "staged" break-in. There is damage to the shutter and glass embedded in the shutter, it couldn't have gotten there if the rock was thrown from the inside. The glass is inside the room, not outside below the window, why would anyone think the rock was thrown from the inside?

I suppose a dozen things 'could have happened' but evidence says they didn't, evidence strongly points to RG being in the bathroom and MK's room, AK lived there and there's so much more evidence that RG was in that room when she was killed, and not AK. I don't care to use the kiss acronym because it ends with a derogatory word but really, simple explains things better and truer than all the histrionics and back-bending the prosecution has continually done to try in any way possible to put AK and RS in the house that night, and the evidence just doesn't support it.

When is the defense up? I've forgotten the schedule and don't recall which thread someone posted it for me. :blushing:

 

[SMK]

I just don't understand why AK would give him access to the cottage, if she wanted MK to be robbed, AK had access and could have stolen anything she wanted and deflected attention because there were other roommates. Aside from MK thinking AK was sloppy and a bad housekeeper, there's nothing else that leads anyone to think they had a bad relationship (that I've seen) that would cause her to want harm to come to MK.

Putting someone AK didn't know well at all (RG) into the picture would only increase her chances of getting caught, it just doesn't make any reasonable sense to me.

That's what bothers me about the trial so much, so little of the prosecution's reasoning is logical, esp. about the "staged" break-in. There is damage to the shutter and glass embedded in the shutter, it couldn't have gotten there if the rock was thrown from the inside. The glass is inside the room, not outside below the window, why would anyone think the rock was thrown from the inside?

I suppose a dozen things 'could have happened' but evidence says they didn't, evidence strongly points to RG being in the bathroom and MK's room, AK lived there and there's so much more evidence that RG was in that room when she was killed, and not AK. I don't care to use the kiss acronym because it ends with a derogatory word but really, simple explains things better and truer than all the histrionics and back-bending the prosecution has continually done to try in any way possible to put AK and RS in the house that night, and the evidence just doesn't support it.

When is the defense up? I've forgotten the schedule and don't recall which thread someone posted it for me. :blushing:

First of all:

Schedule:

Maresca will have to speak for the Civil Parties (Kerchers) this coming Monday, as Crini took his time up last month with his 10 hours of closing arguments.

• So this Mon & Tues: Dec 16, 17 : Civil Parties and begin Defense Knox, Sollecito.
• To be continued Thurs, Fri Jan 9, 10 - with Defense Closings followed by Rebuttals
• Jan 15: Jury begins Deliberation
  

Secondly, please be aware that I mean to do NO disservice to Amanda:

I don't have her giving Guede access to the cottage because I think she is evil;

rather, I do so to explain:

• staged burglary (which Postal Police noticed immediately, without giving any thought at all to the height of the window, or whether or not rock was thrown from inside or outside: The sense of staging for the first officer (Officer Battistelli) on Nov 2 was immediate and total)
• appearance of clean up
• Knox blood in small bath
• Knox/Kercher traces in Filomena's room
• Knox lamp in murder room
• holes in alibis
• over-calling of people morning of discovery
• some of Micheli's original findings and forensic pointers which have not fully been disproven satisfactorily
• Quintavalle's testimony and other testimony

 

[otto]

I completely understand why she didn't attend her London funeral. I think it was the memorial service in Perugia that some people questioned.

Knox and Sollecito did not attend the memorial for Meredith in Perugia. The memorial occurred before they were arrested. All of Meredith's friend and family attended that memorial. Nothing prevented Knox and Sollecito from attending the memorial. They simply chose to not attend.

 

[otto]

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.

Knox and Sollecito both stated that they abused illegal drugs on the night of the murder.

Drugs tests that were administered five days after the murder would not reveal when drugs were used.

 

[otto]

I just don't understand why AK would give him access to the cottage, if she wanted MK to be robbed, AK had access and could have stolen anything she wanted and deflected attention because there were other roommates. Aside from MK thinking AK was sloppy and a bad housekeeper, there's nothing else that leads anyone to think they had a bad relationship (that I've seen) that would cause her to want harm to come to MK.

Putting someone AK didn't know well at all (RG) into the picture would only increase her chances of getting caught, it just doesn't make any reasonable sense to me.

That's what bothers me about the trial so much, so little of the prosecution's reasoning is logical, esp. about the "staged" break-in. There is damage to the shutter and glass embedded in the shutter, it couldn't have gotten there if the rock was thrown from the inside. The glass is inside the room, not outside below the window, why would anyone think the rock was thrown from the inside?

I suppose a dozen things 'could have happened' but evidence says they didn't, evidence strongly points to RG being in the bathroom and MK's room, AK lived there and there's so much more evidence that RG was in that room when she was killed, and not AK. I don't care to use the kiss acronym because it ends with a derogatory word but really, simple explains things better and truer than all the histrionics and back-bending the prosecution has continually done to try in any way possible to put AK and RS in the house that night, and the evidence just doesn't support it.

When is the defense up? I've forgotten the schedule and don't recall which thread someone posted it for me. :blushing:

BBM
Which bathroom? If the small bathroom, what evidence?

 

[Monzoo]

Knox and Sollecito did not attend the memorial for Meredith in Perugia. The memorial occurred before they were arrested. All of Meredith's friend and family attended that memorial. Nothing prevented Knox and Sollecito from attending the memorial. They simply chose to not attend.

I hope you can provide evidence that anyone with a strong connection to the case -- that is, any cottage residents or any of Meredith's English girlfriends --actually attended. It is my understanding that none of Meredith's family was in Perugia at the time, and naturally did not attend.

 

[otto]

Recent court decisions in the US have a lot of people questioning what US justice is all about. It doesn't seem to be based on what is right or wrong, but rather on whether a lawyer can skew perceptions such that a guilty person appears innocent. Yesterday, a 16 year old drunk driver that killed four people was given probation because he's a rich kid who didn't learn that there were consequences for breaking the law. The courts confirmed his belief and did not impose consequences for killing four people. A woman that shoved her husband off a cliff and tried to cover up her crime was allowed to plea to a lesser charge for no obvious reason. A woman that murdered her child was found not guilty because the jury didn't see how the murder occurred. I see the same approach with this case. That is, every legal trick and skewing of perceptions is presented in order to paint Knox and Sollecito as not guilty. At the same time, common sense tells me that innocent people don't need each piece of evidence to be reviewed in isolation, they don't need PR Firms, they don't need to undermine the science of DNA, and they don't need to aggressively attack every individual that had a role in the persuit of justice. Yet, that is all we have seen from the defense for Knox/Sollecito.

 

[otto]

I hope you can provide evidence that anyone with a strong connection to the case -- that is, any cottage residents or any of Meredith's English girlfriends --actually attended. It is my understanding that none of Meredith's family was in Perugia at the time, and naturally did not attend.

Did Knox and Sollecito attend the memorial, or not?

 

[Katody]

A lot of confusion here, let's do it point by point

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.

The minutes are available on the internet:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Verbale_6_nov_01.45.pdf

If you please look at the top of the document there is written:
Transcript/minutes (Verbale) of summary information (sommarie informazioni) from person informed of facts (i.e. a witness)

These are the minutes of the witness interrogation (i.e. taking summary information) that Donnino is being asked about in the trial transcript. Ghirga notes that only opening time of the minutes is written down, unlike the minutes of Raffaele's interrogation that recorded both opening and closing.

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.

This is the confusion I'm talking about.
a person informed of facts is a witness, not a suspect (l'indagato). Just look at the interview you linked:

So then they called Amanda, and Amanda was heard by the police as a person not under investigation, thus with no defense attorney, because the person… the witness, the person informed of the facts during the investigation – is not called a witness, he is called a person informed of the facts - she was heard by the police who pointed out to her, they confronted her with this question: why is Raffaele saying something else?

]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.

Because it's written at the top of the document?

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

Let's say Mignini wasn't precise The document records the opening of the minutes at 1:45am.

Reading the transcript of Donnino's testimony it's all about this 'funny question'. The defence asks her when exactly had the accusation been made and she cannot answer. She only says it was after the 1:45 interrogation started.
There is no record of when the accusation had been made, we can only time it by Donnino's remark that after that there was only a brief pause and then Mignini took over. This time is on record in Amanda's "voluntary" declaration of 5:45am.

Of course inspector Giobbi also gives the time that confirms what Donnino revealed. The interrogation lasted from after 10 pm to around 5 am.

 

[otto]

A lot of confusion here, let's do it point by point
The minutes are available on the internet:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Verbale_6_nov_01.45.pdf

If you please look at the top of the document there is written:
Transcript/minutes (Verbale) of summary information (sommarie informazioni) from person informed of facts (i.e. a witness)

These are the minutes of the witness interrogation (i.e. taking summary information) that Donnino is being asked about in the trial transcript. Ghirga notes that only opening time of the minutes is written down, unlike the minutes of Raffaele's interrogation that recorded both opening and closing.

This is the confusion I'm talking about.
a person informed of facts is a witness, not a suspect (l'indagato). Just look at the interview you linked:

Because it's written at the top of the document?

Let's say Mignini wasn't precise The document records the opening of the minutes at 1:45am.

Reading the transcript of Donnino's testimony it's all about this 'funny question'. The defence asks her when exactly had the accusation been made and she cannot answer. She only says it was after the 1:45 interrogation started.
There is no record of when the accusation had been made, we can only time it by Donnino's remark that after that there was only a brief pause and then Mignini took over. This time is on record in Amanda's "voluntary" declaration of 5:45am.

Of course inspector Giobbi also gives the time that confirms what Donnino revealed. The interrogation lasted from after 10 pm to around 5 am.

The documents that Knox signed were excluded from the proceedings, so for six years already, the 1:45 AM statement made no difference in the murder conviction. Knox was convicted for the slander against Patriick because of statements she made after she was arrested.

 

[Katody]

The documents that Knox signed were excluded from the proceedings, so for six years already, the 1:45 AM statement made no difference in the murder conviction. Knox was convicted for the slander against Patriick because of statements she made after she was arrested.

They are however crucial to understand how the investigation fallen into error and this miscarriage of justice occurred, precipitated by the illegal overnight interrogation that resulted in coerced false confession.

The minutes of interrogation (1:45) and the "voluntary" statement of 5:45 were both excluded by the supreme court from use against Amanda. However they can be used for her defense. That's why her lawyers brought them up during questioning of Donnino.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Knox and Sollecito did not attend the memorial for Meredith in Perugia. The memorial occurred before they were arrested. All of Meredith's friend and family attended that memorial. Nothing prevented Knox and Sollecito from attending the memorial. They simply chose to not attend.

Really? Are you sure?

None of them attended. One who stumbled upon it by accident said she left feeling uncomfortable.

This has been pointed out in these threads 10-20 times before.

 

[otto]

They are however crucial to understand how the investigation fallen into error and this miscarriage of justice occurred, precipitated by the illegal overnight interrogation that resulted in coerced false confession.

The minutes of interrogation (1:45) and the "voluntary" statement of 5:45 were both excluded by the supreme court from use against Amanda. However they can be used for her defense. That's why her lawyers brought them up during questioning of Donnino.

I'm not aware of any false confession. Could you please elaborate.

Is the objective to skew perceptions such that an "accusation" should be interpreted as a "confession"?

 

[quesarita]

[*]Knox blood in small bath
[/LIST][/COLOR]

SMK, did Amanda have cuts on her hands or arms that could have come from a struggle that were tied to her blood found in the small bathroom?

 

[otto]

Really? Are you sure?

None of them attended. One who stumbled upon it by accident said she left feeling uncomfortable.

This has been pointed out in these threads 10-20 times before.

Is this about laying the groundwork for concocting excuses for Knox and Sollecito not attending the memorial? Does Knox not attend memorials for her "good friends"?

 

[SMK]

SMK, did Amanda have cuts on her hands or arms that could have come from a struggle that were tied to her blood found in the small bathroom?

No, she didn't, so far as we know.

So yes, that weakens that evidence.

Crini emphasizes the trace in Filomena's room.

(Believe me, I waver and often wonder if this is not just another Ryan Ferguson case (innocents railroaded). But something keeps raising considerable and formidable doubt as to innocence, in my mind. (the closing analysis as set forth by Crini being one of them) Thank god the ruling will have nothing to do with me; I leave it to others to decide Whatever the ruling, I hope it will be true and just. )

 

[otto]

SMK, did Amanda have cuts on her hands or arms that could have come from a struggle that were tied to her blood found in the small bathroom?

Knox had an abrasion on her neck, and she claimed that the blood in the bathroom was due ear piercings. Was she washing her ears in the bidet?