Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #10

[otto]

Could it be they felt a bit awkward , as Amanda was accused of murdering her? Perhaps they felt it would sound like an admission of culpability??? After all, if AK and her family are such good fakes and liars, this would have been the time to lay it on thick, "How very, very sorry we are, how grieved and pained, we have lost her, too, etc."

Thank goodness the Knox/Mellas clan has an excuse for not expressing condolences to the family of Amanda's "good friend".

I was merely pointing out that something was published about the absence of condolences, not remorse.

 

[SMK]

Did they? She was talking to her father, not police.

Why would she adjust the truth as she knew it when talking with her father?

What did she know? Yes, the police had told her, yes. What did she know besides what they told her? Maybe nothing, maybe she adjusted nothing. Maybe more......it is a mystery. But who made it so?

 

[Nova]

Who is arguing? Knox is a convicted murderer, and there's no reason to suggest that this is impossible due to her childhood, or the fact that this is her first conviction.

Nor has anyone done so except the phantom debater in your mind with whom you are doing battle.

 

[Nova]

It has actually been pointed out that neither Amanda, nor anyone in her entire family, has expressed condolences (not remorse). That was the important point. Meredith was murdered and although Amanda has pretended that Meredith was her "good friend", she has said that she wants to "get on with her life". Meredith's father pointed out in one of his articles that the family had failed to convey condolences at any time. Knox/Mellas response was that they'll get around to it after their daughter is out of jail. That is sooooooooooo brash.

Oh, please. This is one of those areas were innocent defendants can never win. If they make contact with the family of the victim they are "insensitive." If they do not, they are "callous."

This is a garbage argument that crops up in every case where an innocent defendant is wrongly convicted.

 

[otto]

It does not conflict with the facts as known by AK at the time of the conversation. By then, she knew of the broken window, of course, but she had been assured by ILE that the break-in was staging only, so RG must have entered via the door.

Her remark to her father is hardly conclusive, but it is more consistent with an innocent girl relying (perhaps foolishly) on the good faith assertions of ILE than with a guilty murderer who needs people to believe the break in represented a genuine, homicidal intruder--the proverbial "bushy-haired stranger".

That you and others try to turn it into some sort of Freudian slip (talk about your unproven psychiatric theories!) that incriminates AK just reeks of desperation.

When was Knox assured that the broken window was staged, right after she was assured that Patrick was arrested?

I can't believe you're flipping from the big, bad, violent, abusive police coercing sweet little Amanda to "Amanda was relying on the good faith of assertions of the Italian police".

No one needs to turn Amanda's statement about Meredith walking in through the front door into a Freudian slip. It is a Freudian slip.

 

[Nova]

Did they? She was talking to her father, not police.

Why would she adjust the truth as she knew it when talking with her father?

She did not. She believe what the police had told her. It's as simple (and perhaps as foolish) as that.

As you and everyone who is pro-verdict has pointed out, denying that the break-in was real did nothing to help her case. Oh, that's right: it was a Freudian slip rather than a wrongly accused young woman discussing the facts as she had been told them at the time.

 

[otto]

What did she know? Yes, the police had told her, yes. What did she know besides what they told her? Maybe nothing, maybe she adjusted nothing. Maybe more......it is a mystery. But who made it so?

When did police tell Amanda that the broken window was a staged break in, and why didn't Amanda use that opportunity to tell them that she lied about Patrick?

 

[Nova]

When was Knox assured that the broken window was staged, right after she was assured that Patrick was arrested?

I can't believe you're flipping from the big, bad, violent, abusive police coercing sweet little Amanda to "Amanda was relying on the good faith of assertions of the Italian police".

No one needs to turn Amanda's statement about Meredith walking in through the front door into a Freudian slip. It is a Freudian slip.

You're just making up stuff out of whole cloth now. I've already demonstrated that AK had to have been told the break-in was phony by the time of the convo with her father. That she believed it was so may have been foolish of her, but it doesn't make her guilty of murder.

 

[SMK]

I thought this was interesting, because it parallels what may be happening with this case. It was posted on Perugia Shock, translated from Italian to English, which is why it is worded oddly: Look how close the parallel:



Polanco is the cop in Texas who badgered Christopher Ochoa, a completely innocent man, into confessing to a rape-murder and accusing his equally innocent friend, Richard Danziger. Ochoa and Danziger spent over a decade in a prison that is rumored to be a tad more rustic than Capenne in terms of both amenities and ambience. Danziger was beaten within an inch of his life and ended up with permanent brain damage.

The police used very sophisticated methods with Ochoa. They pointed to a spot on his arm and said, "that's where the needle is gonna go." They showed him pictures of the murdered girl and said, "look at what you did." Then they said, "we're gonna put you in with a bunch of hard cases who will be glad to have fresh meat." When Ochoa still balked, they threw a big, wooden chair at him, smashing into the wall behind him after missing his head by an inch.

They were advanced students of psychology, these officers. Their scholarship had revealed the amazing fact that if you terrorize and threaten someone, you can often get him to say whatever you want.


Years later, the real killer confessed, a lab confirmed the DNA match, and the authorities were obliged to free Ochoa and Danziger. But first they tried, for a number of months, to find some kind of social connection between Ochoa and Danziger and the guy who really did it. They were hoping they could claim they all did it together. They failed at that mission. It turned out the real perp had never so much as smoked pot with Ochoa at a party. So they had to admit that, through no fault of their own of course, a mistake seemed to have been made...

and about another , similar case, where DNA did not match, but police would not recant their theory:


But that didn't matter to the police or the prosecutor. They did not care that their entire scenario had long since become ridiculous. They did not care that four innocent men were in prison. They cared only about their own reputations. They would not admit they were wrong.
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2011/03/knox-sollecito-ochoa-danziger-and.html

 

[otto]

Nor has anyone done so except the phantom debater in your mind with whom you are doing battle.

I think you skipped reading some of the comments ... or trying to change the subject?

 

[otto]

Oh, please. This is one of those areas were innocent defendants can never win. If they make contact with the family of the victim they are "insensitive." If they do not, they are "callous."

This is a garbage argument that crops up in every case where an innocent defendant is wrongly convicted.

Hello? Are you reading every third remark or what? Someone said Knox didn't express remorse ... it's condolences she didn't express. Details details ... sometimes so very important.

 

[wasnt_me]

True. Except we really dont know what reacted with the luminol since there are about 240 things IIRC.

Otto keeps bringing up in the Motivational Report where the Court's reasoning mentions a haematic substance thus I mentioned one thing that could mimic blood and react with luminol. The real problem is that they cannot confirm with any degree of certainty whether it was haematic in nature or not as there is simply to many things that react with luminol thus the need for another test to confirm for blood like TMB.

It is though very possible that the soil around the cottage could of had iron in it but again anyone could of brought that in on their shoes from ILE to the flatmates etc

Yes, I agree. I've been waiting to ask. What does IIRC stand for?

 

[otto]

You're just making up stuff out of whole cloth now. I've already demonstrated that AK had to have been told the break-in was phony by the time of the convo with her father. That she believed it was so may have been foolish of her, but it doesn't make her guilty of murder.

How/when did you demonstrate that police told Amanda the break in was staged?

Where's the link?

 

[wasnt_me]

...I do believe Freudian slips happen all the time.This makes me think AK did take part in the staging? but why? what if AK and RS staged the break in because they planned to steal the rent money?....and then realized something way more sinister had already happened in the cottage? That might explain their strange behavior ?

You can have a Freudian slip, but I doubt you can have a whole Freudian slip conversation with another person.

 

[wasnt_me]

Well:
Both claimed to have slept until 10am... until phone and computer evidence showed they had not.

They were scheduled to go to Gubbio (according to RS's father) in the early morning. No 'change' of plans mentioned. Why not another 'shower' at RS's?
She SHOULD have had plenty of stuff/clothes already for their trip.

He lied about her being with him and on the computer. Since then and until now his statement is that he is not sure if AK left from about 9 something to 1am. He lied about being on the computer during those hours. AK lied about what time they ate and the water spill. Both lied about waking up at 10am originally. AK lied when accusing Patrick. RS lied about 'pricking' Meredith. There are more... but I'm sure you get the idea.

Yeah you think they lied about stuff. Your opinion. Some things, they did lie about and I understand the reasons for it. You don't. Okay.

You think AK should have packed clothes for a trip. Since she isn't that organized, she's a killer. You think since someone might have awakened at 5am turned on some music and went back to sleep, which people do all the time at that age, they're killers. You get the idea...

 

[otto]

You can have a Freudian slip, but I doubt you can have a whole Freudian slip conversation with another person.

There was only one slip. Knox believes that Meredith let Rudy in through the front door. That leaves only one person breaking the window: Knox.

 

[SMK]

I am more than interested in reading your thoughts on this case right here, but to be referred to some blog to read what someone else wrote ... why?

Because it parallels and sheds light on this case. It shows how these theories take on a life of their own. It is relevant, and illuminating to, this case, else I would not have posted it here. :razz:fftobed::anguish:

 

[wasnt_me]

They still know proper procedure, as I'm sure you would if you were a Postal Policeperson. They still witness what she did and what she touched in the room. I don't believe the defense 'charging' her with messing up the crime scene and trying to ruin her testimony would have worked. The defense saying that both the witness and the police officers are lying on the stand probably wouldn't go over too well with the court and the jurors... especially with no evidence of it. I believe they testified her computer was the only thing she moved at all anyway, she didn't crawl across the floor or throw anything around as far as I know.

Yep. They know proper procedure and broke it because they should have kept her out till the other police who handled it came. Again, if the PP could have handled it, they would have told AK and RS that upon arriving. And no, you cannot be sure I would break proper procedure if I were a PP.

The motivation report already makes the case the FR altered the crime scene by going through her stuff. Their answer was that "Oh well, it's done now and can't be undone."

What effectiveness the strategy would have and what not, all your opinion.
Yeah, as far as you know. And it's as far as you know, because no one knows to what extent RF altered the crime scene, even if accidentally.

 

[otto]

Because it parallels and sheds light on this case. It shows how these theories take on a life of their own. It is relevant, and illuminating to, this case, else I would not have posted it here. :razz:fftobed::anguish:

Some guy in Texas confessed to murder after 2 hours, where during one hour he and the investigators didn't speak the same language?

 

[wasnt_me]

Well, in the case of Amanda and Raffaele, I would assume something would have had to gone terribly amiss , which there is little indication of.

Whether abused or what have you, can't we see progression in something like this? They claimed jeffrey dahmar wasn't abused, right? but they also said when he was young, he was fascinated with skinning dead animals. Look where that led. So I'd like to see AK and RS' progression to gang rape and murder, especially in which they like to watch the rape and not participate or leave DNA.