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

[Katody]

The abrasion was still visible five days later on November 6? It is an abrasion. Knox has not explained the cause of that abrasion.

Naah, it was a hickey. Amanda explained it was from Raffaele's kiss.
:loveyou: let's do it all night

 

[Katody]

What did the M.E. say about the wound?

Something that neither Crini nor previous prosecutors wanted to introduce into case file

 

[SMK]

Who were the two accomplices that participated in the murder ... or did Noura act alone?

OK, point taken. Noura would have gotten more scratched up, as she acted alone.

 

[quesarita]

The abrasion was still visible five days later on November 6? It is an abrasion. Knox has not explained the cause of that abrasion.

Apparently she did explain it. Speaking from personal experience only, yes, a hickey could still be visible and photographable 5 days later, especially on someone with fair skin.

 

[otto]

But Amanda could have bled in the bathroom at some other time than during/after the murder. Even if that is not a hickey as it appears to me, it's not a break in the skin that would have dripped blood anywhere.

Knox was asked whether the blood in the bathroom was there when she left the cottage on November 1. She said no. Therefore, we know that the blood was left at the time of the murder.

 

[quesarita]

Knox was asked whether the blood in the bathroom was there when she left the cottage on November 1. She said no. Therefore, we know that the blood was left at the time of the murder.

She knew she was being asked about her own blood being in the bathroom?

 

[otto]

She knew she was being asked about her own blood being in the bathroom?

She was asked whether the blood was there prior to the murder. She said no.

 

[aa9511]

I understand your points.

I believe you could be breaking down and near some type of revelation, while still blaming Patrick. I am not certain if police pressured her (it kind of looks like they did) or if she was in total control of the Patrick thing (strategic, acting, feigning).

Remember, this would not be a "prank" , but a felony. Imagine a "friend" setting you up for the same.

I guess to me, either they are :
1. Wholly innocent and caught up in the Ryan Ferguson syndrome

or

2. Guilty of setting "the lone wolf " on Meredith (just not enough evidence of them in that room for me).

I do see your reasoning. But I still have my hunches (which could be dead wrong, I know). ***ETA: The believers in innocence, remember, think she did nothing whatsoever---NO ACT that she would break down and confess to.

Ok, but:

1. Ryan Ferguson always maintained his complete innocence. He never lied and named some completely innocent person as the killer. That is, he never was "coerced" to lie, and we all know he was under pressure, real pressure, to confess from the investigators.

2. That is what I'm saying....that if she was guilty of setting the "lone wolf" on Meredith, but never telling him to do something like murder her, let alone in such a brutal, horrible way.....then under this "pressure" she was under, wouldn't she have "broken down" and confessed? Remember, this would be under interrogation, and before she had her team of lawyers to advise her on Italian law, and what Italian law says about whether that would be considereed a felony or not and how many years in prison it would get her.

3. Common sense tells me that someone would not risk going on trial for murder, if what they actually did was tell someone to just rob and/or scare a person, and what that person actually did instead was, on his own decision, rape and brutally stab the person to death. That is just what my common sense is telling me. And that is what I feel that Amanda's common sesnse would have been telling her in that interrogation room, way back when, before the trial and all we that has transpired since then.

I understand your point about felony, but see my #3 point above. It just doesn't make common sense to me, looking at from Amanda's point of view, at the time of the interrogation.

 

[Katody]

She was asked whether the blood was there prior to the murder. She said no.

So she was asked about Meredith's blood. That's kind of obvious that the bloody bathmat tracks, and the blood sprinkle in the sink wasn't there before the murder.

 

[SMK]

Ok, but:

1. Ryan Ferguson always maintained his complete innocence. He never lied and named some completely innocent person as the killer. That is, he never was "coerced" to lie, and we all know he was under pressure, real pressure, to confess from the investigators.

2. That is what I'm saying....that if she was guilty of setting the "lone wolf" on Meredith, but never telling him to do something like murder her, let alone in such a brutal, horrible way.....then under this "pressure" she was under, wouldn't she have "broken down" and confessed? Remember, this would be under interrogation, and before she had her team of lawyers to advise her on Italian law, and what Italian law says about whether that would be considereed a felony or not and how many years in prison it would get her.

3. Common sense tells me that someone would not risk going on trial for murder, if what they actually did was tell someone to just rob and/or scare a person, and what that person actually did instead was, on his own decision, rape and brutally stab the person to death. That is just what my common sense is telling me. And that is what I feel that Amanda's common sesnse would have been telling her in that interrogation room, way back when, before the trial and all we that has transpired since then.

I understand your point about felony, but see my #3 point above. It just doesn't make common sense to me, looking at from Amanda's point of view, at the time of the interrogation.

OK, you may be right. You make some very good points.

I guess there would have probably come a point where she would have blurted out the truth - or at least ask for the advisement of her attorney.

I just find it hard to believe - if they acted with Guede - that the evidence would not be both more ample and more clear.

 

[aa9511]

Amanda testified it's a hickey. The prosecution didn't present the post arrest medical examination report to contradict it. I take it as a proof.

So if Amanda says "the Earth is flat," and the prosecution didn't present a scientist to rebut her, would we have to believe that the Earth is flat? Because there was nothing in evidence to contradict/refute it?

Maybe the reason Amanda lies about some of the things she has lied about, is precisely [I]because there is nothing/nobody to refute those claims. [/I]

 

[Katody]

So if Amanda says "the Earth is flat," and the prosecution didn't present a scientist to rebut her, would we have to believe that the Earth is flat? Because there was nothing in evidence to contradict/refute it?

Maybe the reason Amanda lies about some of the things she has lied about, is precisely [I]because there is nothing/nobody to refute those claims. [/I]

No, the idea of my argument is that the prosecution didn't present the medical opinion about the nature of the thing that the medic photographed.

One explanation is that the medic wrote it is a bruise aka hickey, so the prosecution couldn't give it because it confirmed Amanda's words and not giving it at least left the waters muddy.

Your explanation? If you have some we can argue, if you have none, I rest my case

 

[Katody]

Obviously the medic who did the photo noted what is it that he's photographing. That must be somewhere in the records that the prosecution decided not to bring up.

 

[otto]

So she was asked about Meredith's blood. That's kind of obvious that the bloody bathmat tracks, and the blood sprinkle in the sink wasn't there before the murder.

She was asked about the blood in the small bathroom.

 

[SMK]

Obviously the medic who did the photo noted what is it that he's photographing. That must be somewhere in the records that the prosecution decided not to bring up.

OK, so it was basically dropped after the examiner wrote his report.

So they allowed Laura to testify about it (and Aida Colantone - the interpreter who was sent to the cottage for Amanda on Nov 4 - also testified about it) but we will assume the defense refuted it as a hickey, and that was where the matter rested. Correct?

 

[otto]

OK, so it was basically dropped after the examiner wrote his report.

So they allowed Laura to testify about it (and the interpreter who was sent to the cottage for Amanda on Nov 4 also testified about it) but we will assume the defense refuted it as a hickey, and that was where the matter rested. Correct?

I don't recall any testimony about it. Was the medical examiner identified and was that testimony made available to the public?

 

[quesarita]

OK, so it was basically dropped after the examiner wrote his report.

So they allowed Laura to testify about it (and the interpreter who was sent to the cottage for Amanda on Nov 4 also testified about it) but we will assume the defense refuted it as a hickey, and that was where the matter rested. Correct?

Sounds correct, and I assume the prosecution would have otherwise tried to tie blood found in the cottage to a wound on Amanda if he could.

 

[Katody]

OK, so it was basically dropped after the examiner wrote his report.

So they allowed Laura to testify about it (and Aida Colantone - the interpreter who was sent to the cottage for Amanda on Nov 4 - also testified about it) but we will assume the defense refuted it as a hickey, and that was where the matter rested. Correct?

The only explanation I see for not providing the medical record is that it confirmed Amanda's version.
Of course it had the benefit for the prosecution of muddying the waters. Which is basically everything they did in the trial, given the lack of solid evidence.

 

[Katody]

She was asked about the blood in the small bathroom.

And what is it supposed to prove? Was anyone expecting Meredith's blood to be there before the murder?

 

[SMK]

I don't recall any testimony about it. Was the medical examiner identified and was that testimony made available to the public?

You can see the summary of Aida Colantone (the interpreter who was sent to the cottage on Nov 4 to aid Amanda) concerning "the red mark" in her testimony
(it can be found as the final point listed in the summary)

here

and Laura's testimony about "the scratch" was a matter of public knowledge as news articles showed here.

I do not see any mention of the Medical Examiner's report.