Well, I think that is easier said than done, in hindsight. Knowing what we know now. That the conviction got overturned, and now they are free for the time being, and probably they will not be imprisoned again because my guess is that they will both go into hiding if the conviction gets upheld. If it had been conviction, and stay in prison, we might think differently on "taking the chance."
Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#8
- Thread starter Harmony 2
- Start date
- Status
Well, I think that is easier said than done, in hindsight. Knowing what we know now. That the conviction got overturned, and now they are free for the time being, and probably they will not be imprisoned again because my guess is that they will both go into hiding if the conviction gets upheld. If it had been conviction, and stay in prison, we might think differently on "taking the chance."
Chris_Halkides
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 608
- Reaction score
- 12
Your claim is utterly without foundation. No one can interrogate DNA to determine from which tissue it arose.
Of course Amanda falsely confessed to enabling Lumumba access to the villa.
This is an objective fact, not contested by anyone I hope, that in truth she didn't.
I think that the confession was due to the coercion and manipulation. It was a textbook false confession.
We have police driven by tunnel vision targeting a suspect exclusively.
The day after the discovery of the murder they had already her phone wiretapped, recording each and every conversation.
Amanda was at the police station every day since the murder. As Giobbi testified, they interrogated her for 3-4 hours each time.
By the 5th of November she was already exhausted, in her recorded phone calls she is heard talking about the exhaustion and the aggressiveness of the obsessive interrogations.
Then on the night of 5th November Giobbi orders the simultaneous interrogation of her and Raffaele.
Giobbi testified it was the longest interrogation so far. By his testimony it lasted at least 6 hours.
Donnino confirms that when she arrived at the station well after midnight Amanda had been interrogated for some time already. The official minutes of interrogation were started with Donnino present, supposedly at 1:45am. The interrogation lasted until the confession was written down, then after a brief pause Mignini took over at 5:45am.
Then again by Donnino's account, we have the police questioning Amanda's recollection and telling her they have evidence falsifying her alibi.
Donnino, by her own testimony suggests to her she has post-traumatic amnesia due to witnessing the crime.
What I see here are basic elements of coercive interrogation resulting in false confession:
Lack of lawyer,
lack of recording,
exhausted suspect in a mentally altered state (Donnino, Giobbi and other witnesses confirm the fact of shock and emotional break down explicitly),
unusually lengthy interrogation in the middle of the night,
a young, impressionable suspect willing to collaborate and agree with authority figures
suggestions of amnesia from the police, paired with undermining suspect's own recollection of events,
interrogation in foreign language with no impartial interpreter.
At this point, I doubt they really care about the Kerchers' and the Universities' view of them. That is just my honest opinion. Their sole motivation, IMO, at that point would be to get the HE$$ out and get their freedom back. It would even trump whatever their parents think of them, IMO. And they could have just told their parents, hey we didn't really do it, but I gotta do this so I can have a chance of coming out. There is no other way, I have to admit to something I didn't really do. I think, given all that their parents have already had to excuse and believe, the parents of all would have believed that.
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.
Yes, SMK, maybe big trouble, but not as much as the actual murder. The actual murderer still would have gotten more, IMO. That is just my opinion, I don't have legal expertise or anything, of course. Since they would know who the actual murderer was, Rudy, then Amanda and RS would IMO definately get less than whatever Rudy would have gotten without fast track, which would have been life, IMO.
They did not commit the actual murder, in that scenario.
If they could get anything less than a life sentence, don't you think they would try? That's their life we're talking about. I believe that when your whole life's freedom is on the line, most would do anything to get a way out.
I suppose anything is possible. (btw, this arguing for the guilt side isn't very fun.
)Yes, but the prosecution did not ask for life sentences: Only 30 years. (26 since they already served four)
And my guess is that even in Italy, setting up a criminal felony act which results in murder is accessory to murder and would get close to the same. (at least 20). ("Great news, Mom; I came clean and only have to do 20 years now, not 26!")
They are hoping for (and just may get) another Hellmann ruling ("these defendants did not commit these crimes").
It would only be when appeals were exhausted that you would come clean.
I fully respect that you and probably everyone else disagrees with my reasoning.I still think it's possible that you would hold out for total innocence if you could.
bbm
Hasn't he heard of the "affluenza" defense like the teenager in Texas used for his drunk driving killing?
Actually, when you fix the contrast, to my eyes it looks more suspicious: even moreso in the second contrast:
Attachments
Along the same lines, his attorney came up with the "iPod Alibi" and it made a huge splash across headlines.
SMK, regarding this topic, I just thought of something else, too.
If the claims are that she was so "coerced and manipulated" that she made her Patrick Lumumba statement (in which I believe she only put herself at the cottage by necessity, b/c she would have had to have been there in order to "identify" Patrick as the killer), then why did she not crumble under the intense pressure, and confess to this whole "plan" by Amanda and RS to get Rudy to rob and assault Meredith?
If, in a hypothetical, that is the truth: that Amanda and RS wanted to play some sort of bad prank on Meredith and gave Rudy the key to go and rob (or is it pretend-rob?) and assault her (or is it pretend-assault?)..........
then why did they not "crumble" under the "intense coercion/manipulation/torture (pick whatever version you choose)?
Hmmmm. Something to ponder.
So are the believers of her innocence then saying that she was so coerced that she lied, but not so coerced as to "confess" to the truth of what she did? The truth being, in this scenario, your hypothetical from above?
I know that's confusing, but do you get my point?
If we take this "extreme interrogation" that people want us to believe, then wouldn't she have confessed the real truth?
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.
Do you really believe this? If so, then they are acting insanely and irresponsibly. What satisfaction could they get in "pretending" Knox is guilty, and fooling the world through deceptive trickery?
If they believed it was a hickey, but photoshopped it to deceive the public - that is ludicrous. I hope you're wrong. It is not only unethical, but makes no sense. And it would mean they believe Knox is likely innocent, but are framing her. To what end??? Here it is in B and W:
(ETA: Or do you mean that are such Javert-like zealots that in their passionate belief she is guilty, are "helping it along", as the cop who "knows" the suspect did it, will feel justified in planting his fingerprints?)
Attachments
Exactly, I think one of them would have confessed to a minor role if that had happened.
Amber29
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,358
- Reaction score
- 357
I don't view it as a minor role: I view it as being the one who set the whole thing in motion. And legally, a felony and accessory to homicide.
Especially clear in B&W is the fact that it is lighter than the moles/freckles on her skin and appears to be beneath the surface of one of the spots. Also, something I tried to post earlier didn't show up:
I don't see any scabbing here from where blood would have dropped, and there are apparently no other cuts or scratches on Amanda that could have dropped blood, which indicates to me that traces of Amanda's blood found in the cottage are from well before the murder took place and irrelevant to the murder case.
As I understand it, Meredith was menstruating, so finding her blood in the bidet next to her bedroom is not surprising and does not in itself indicate anyone was washing their feet in the bidet. Finding Amanda's dna in the bidet is also not indicative of much except that she might have used it at some point.
- Status