Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #10

[SMK]

I don't think they determined that. It was RG's Y chromosome only, but I don't want to get too technical otherwise I won't understand myself

OK. Well, everything that I have read from the onset points to RG having digitally assaulted MK. But let it stand. Thanks.

 

[sherlockh]

yes,it's weird how the crap is so significant,I never thought a crap could be so scary but given the circumstances I understand.
I think RS turned on AK because they told him about the guy she was with in the laundry,I think that made him think twice.
I don't understand either why they selected FR's room for the break in,whether staged or not,IMO no one cold have gotten into that window and yes,MK's room is on the same height but it doesn't seem to have the possibility to maybe get in from the side ?
I think RG gave a good clue about having waited for MK to return in his diary,I think that's a good possibility how he got in...

I didn't understand why they chose FR's room either. It looks impossible from the outside, but then I saw the pictures from the inside looking out and you don't notice it. It looks even with the parking space. AK should have known better but maybe it was forgotten during that moment and it seems they did not realize how high that window actually was. IMO staging a break-in from the inside is not a good idea. They should have started from the outside. Just speculating of course.

 

[sherlockh]

OK. Well, everything that I have read from the onset points to RG having digitally assaulted MK. But let it stand. Thanks.

Yes, I totally agree but just so you know there are discussions on other forums about certain 'sperm' stains on the pillow that should have been tested.

 

[claudicici]

Here's a link to RG's diary...

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38

 

[SMK]

Here's a link to RG's diary...

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38

Oh, thanks!!!

 

[SMK]

Well, reading Guede's diary, I feel very sorry for him. Of course he is lying like a horse, and I do not believe he had a date with Meredith, who was already seeing another boy from downstairs. There may be some truth between the lines, a few things he says ring true. I still do not see how Guede, Knox, and Sollecito all came together and killed MK that night.

 

[SMK]

p. 18 of Rudy's diary: "I don't know what problems she had with Amanda, but I heard her complaining, so I got up and went to her room. I saw she was furious and she said - her exact words - "That *advertiser censored* of a doper." Heavy words for two people who are friends. Seems to have a ring of truth: Perhaps he witnessed this at a prior time?

 

[SMK]

He is obviously attempting to arouse pity for when his own father brutalized him and caused him to bleed---his protestations notwithstanding. And he is trying to point the finger at Raff. But I for one am troubled by a nuance, a tone of reality here. It is as though some of this did actually occur. I have always believed the 2 blood soaked towels came from Rudy attempting to help her. We have no reason to doubt his word on that. But what was REALLY occurring, what is the true background of what he sets forth??? A fight? Regrets? Some nuance troubles me here.

 

[Nova]

I appreciate the goofiness--god knows we could use some lightness around here sometimes....but let's not get into a German-bashing session here....or a Professor-bashing session, either (yeah Nova?)....I realize you probably don't mean that in a truly mean way, but...I'd prefer we avoid such generalizing statements....for all you know, Otto is in fact a Peruvian grandmother...or a Law Professor at Harvard...or a Jew whose grandparents were killed in the Holocaust....remember to attack the post, not the poster

As a descendent of a clan that was loyal to the Stuarts, I oppose justice for English women out of revenge for the Battle of Culloden of 1746. But John Knox was a famous critic of the Stuarts in the 16th century, so I'm sure AK feels differently.

I think SMK meant her remarks fondly, but you are right: once we go down that road, we can't help but end with hurt feelings.

 

[SMK]

As a descendent of a clan that was loyal to the Stuarts, I oppose justice for English women out of revenge for the Battle of Culloden of 1746. But John Knox was a famous critic of the Stuarts in the 16th century, so I'm sure AK feels differently.

I think SMK meant her remarks fondly, but you are right: once we go down that road, we can't help but end with hurt feelings.

Thanks, yes I did mean that jokingly and affectionately, and have often goofed that way on other forums and with my own Profs. But I will stop as it obviously has gotten some angry.

 

[Nova]

No, it doesn't. If Amanda wants to go to Italy, then Amanda has to live by the laws, culture and customs of Italy. Anyone that has traveled in Italy has probably encountered the little bit more high strung, passionate, talking louder, demanding good-natured Italian culture.

Police everywhere attempt to coerce witnesses to speak the truth. That's their job.
Police everywhere are impatient with witnesses that have been proven to be liars.
If it's the Italian culture to be more demanding and raising their voices while questioning known liars about a murder investigation, then so be it. Who is Amanda Knox to expect something different? She was the liar known to police ... the woman that lied to police about what she did on the night of the murder; the woman that could not explain herself except with lies upon lies.

Ah, yes, that old song. AK went to Italy so anything ILE does to her is fair and just. Maybe it's time the Italian tourist bureau used that as its slogan: "Sunny Italy: Come Here and You're Fair Game for Sloppy Police Work and Out of Control Prosecutors!" Of course, a lot of countries would need the same slogan.

All of which is SO beside the point of whether the treatment of AK resulted in a true or false account of the crime. In this case, we KNOW it resulted in a false statement.

BBM: In the case of ILE and AK, police impatience produced the lie, it wasn't a response to it.

As for demanding that AK "explain" herself, I just woke up at 7. I went to bed at 1 a.m. I hope you don't want an explanation for what happened in between, because I don't have one. I think my husband was in bed the whole time, but he could have gotten up and put a knife in my hand for fingerprints for all I know.

 

[Nova]

Read Amanda's short stories ... if that isn't a troubled soul, nothing is. I especially recommend her winning short story from the prison competition. She uses the alias Marie Pace (that's her middle name with "peace" attached) ... seems to describe the murder ... in a fog, naturally.

Apparently, Stephen King is a homicidal psychopath. I imagine this will be news to his family and friends, because he seems like a nice guy.

 

[SMK]

Thanks, yes I did mean that jokingly and affectionately, and have often goofed that way on other forums and with my own Profs. But I will stop as it obviously has gotten some angry.

I wanted to add that I don't appreciate Knox being seen as a sociopath with a vibrator, or some airhead American college chick, but alas.....I guess that is par for the course.

 

[SMK]

Apparently, Stephen King is a homicidal psychopath. I imagine this will be news to his family and friends, because he seems like a nice guy.

Right, creative writing is just that.

 

[Nova]

I disagree. I think that every time investigators are sitting in a room with a witness or suspect, their sole objective is to coerce the truth from that witness or suspect....

BBM: Yeah, and unicorns eat rainbows. If investigators are "coercing" anything, then it is whatever they already believe--which may or may not be the truth. But this is the bottom line for you and others, isn't it? It's just too frightening to contemplate what actually goes on in police interrogation rooms, because it means that any one of us might be wrongfully accused.

I suspect that guilty people probably come up with some whoppers in the first couple of hours of questioning, perhaps with a grain of truth. Amanda's first whopper was that she had a late dinner and watched a movie on the night of the murder. That got her out of the questioning session until police checked the facts (computer and Dr Sollecito evidence). I'm sure she later added the lie that she and Raffaele slept until 10 AM. That turned out to be a lie - sort of, although they may not have gone to sleep until 6 AM. Always a grain of truth with a whopper of a lie.

These are your ideas of "whoppers"? I don't think you're clear on the meaning of that term. And by the Night of a Thousand Statements, how many days had passed? And yet AK got the time of her dinner wrong! Unfathomable!

It is true that by the time Amanda voluntarily went to the police station and offered a statement about Patrick, she had been questioned before ... but what is almost always overlooked is the fact that during each of those interviews, she lied. Amanda's grain of truth on the night she accused Patrick was that she was there, the whopper was that Patrick was a murderer.

You've discovered transcripts of AK's various interviews? Swell! Point us all to them. You do get the definition of "whopper" right when you mention PL, but of course we all know who brought him into the mix.

Those "grains of truth" you identify are just you picking and choosing what you want to believe from AK's testimony, much as the prosecution did. This is a common LE tactic--particularly with coerced statements--but I've never understood the logic myself: "Oh, yeah, the defendant is a liar, EXCEPT magically when it helps my case. THEN she tells the truth!"

Coercion with bopping on the head is different, but out of supposedly 10 officers in the room at the time, not one of them saw any bopping on the head at the 2 hour mark ... or at any time. There was no bopping on the head before any of the lies except the last ... the one where she screwed herself through ignorance about the law.

I don't know whether AK was hit or not. But it's not a secret that police officers will lie to back each other's accounts, especially when official misconduct is alleged. Again, apparently this is a fact too frightening for you to contemplate.

Police lying to a suspect during questioning is perfectly acceptable pretty much everywhere, but lying under oath? Are you suggesting that it is quite acceptable for Italian police and investigators to lie under oath?

I think that was a misstatement, since we were discussing lying in interrogations, not under oath. Not that police never lie under oath; we know that ILE did so in the AK trial.

But that gives me a great idea! If any of us is ever questioned by police and asked to swear to tell the truth, we should reply, "I will if you will."

 

[Nova]

Apparently that was one of the concerns that Meredith had with Amanda.

Link, please? I'm guessing this doesn't come from a particularly reputable source.

 

[Nova]

That's why it's imparative to as best they can, get an impartial jury. I'll bet even an impartial one starts forming an opinion during opening statements. If not, why would opening statements be so important? Repetition is also essential. If you repeat something, even a lie so many times, people will start to use it as a base of reference. Then later, if they're told it's a lie, they don't believe it....

I'm sorry, I can't wade through the hundreds of links to official jury instructions now available on line. But I have seen studies that back up your contention that jurors tend to make up their minds very early in a trial (often during opening statements) and then sift the ensuing testimony through the sieve of their preconceptions.

Needless to say, this isn't a popular topic in legal circles. And I'm not sure the evidence shows that judges are much better.

 

[Nova]

If that's true, then I'd need to know how often she was calling that bank since she'd moved to Italy. Maybe she wasn't even using that particular bank, as it would make sense to then add the area code to her preprogrammed number. And if she wasn't using that account that much, it would make sense that she'd leave it as it was, because she awsn't really calling on it. See what I'm saying. So then it would make sense that a stranger was using the wrong area code. That doesn't rule out any of the 3 suspects, but it makes a likelier case that she was dead or dying by the time that call was attempted.

See, if we knew from her phone records that she called the bank often, then the theory might still work, because of course she knows the area code. And if she'd dialed wrong, did she try again or just decide "Nah, I don't need to check my bank anyways." Doesn't make sense. So do we show more than one attempt on that call? If we do, and it was correct, then MK did it. If we do and it's still incorrect, someone else did it.

AK could have knowledge of Mk's banks.
RG could have gotten the knowledge from her purse or if the phone number was labled "Bank."

I was also interested to know if Mk's phone had a lock on it. Mine has a code i have to swipe to make it open and work. Sometimes you can accidentally activate a number on your cell phones, but companies try to put those "locks" on them to prevent that. You know what I mean? So she could have accidentally pressed it and dialed, but I believe that's less likely what happened.

I have thought far too little attention was paid to that call. But I think that's because the prosecutor needed to push the TOD back to correspond with other evidence (computer and eyewitness).

So it was convenient to claim MK was just "fiddling" with her phone. Who does that?

 

[Nova]

I agree, but I do think that the police mandate is to use tactics, anything from environmental to psychological manipulation, to get to (coerce) the truth. That is the sole objective of police interactions with the community during criminal investigation interviews ... they are interested in information and can use whatever tools/tactics they have available to get the truth.

I'm not convinced that there is no recording of Amanda's interviews. Police may have the information, but they cannot introduce it because it was ruled inadmissable in court. The defence has never requested video of the interviews. Unless the defence asks to introduce evidence that was ruled inadmissable, it cannot be mentioned by prosecution. I suspect there is a good reason why defence has not demanded vdeo of the inadmissable interviews.

I think Raffaele's alibi was blown by his father (the time of dinner), and then Amanda's quickly crumbled. Amanda probably thought that all she had to do was deflect attention and she could reconoiter with Raffaele. All he had to say was that he told a load of rubbish to protect Amanda but she wasn't with him. They both told a story that deflected attention, but neither story got them out of jail.

If this case proves anything, it's that if the prosecution had thought the transcripts were valuable to them, they would have made sure they were released to the press one way or another.

As for the defense, we know how AK talks and writes. She is so vague and scattered it isn't hard to make "lies" out what is really just careless speech. So I'm not surprised if the defense didn't request the transcripts be admitted into evidence.

But didn't the defense request some of that material only to be told it didn't exist? Or am I confusing interrogation transcripts with something else?

 

[SMK]

If that's true, then I'd need to know how often she was calling that bank since she'd moved to Italy. Maybe she wasn't even using that particular bank, as it would make sense to then add the area code to her preprogrammed number. And if she wasn't using that account that much, it would make sense that she'd leave it as it was, because she awsn't really calling on it. See what I'm saying. So then it would make sense that a stranger was using the wrong area code. That doesn't rule out any of the 3 suspects, but it makes a likelier case that she was dead or dying by the time that call was attempted.

See, if we knew from her phone records that she called the bank often, then the theory might still work, because of course she knows the area code. And if she'd dialed wrong, did she try again or just decide "Nah, I don't need to check my bank anyways." Doesn't make sense. So do we show more than one attempt on that call? If we do, and it was correct, then MK did it. If we do and it's still incorrect, someone else did it.

AK could have knowledge of Mk's banks.
RG could have gotten the knowledge from her purse or if the phone number was labled "Bank."

I was also interested to know if Mk's phone had a lock on it. Mine has a code i have to swipe to make it open and work. Sometimes you can accidentally activate a number on your cell phones, but companies try to put those "locks" on them to prevent that. You know what I mean? So she could have accidentally pressed it and dialed, but I believe that's less likely what happened.

Right, these are all very important questions which affect things such as TOD, true robbery motive or faked robbery, etc. And I agree with Nova that much more time and attention ought to have been given the bank calls.