Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #10

[SMK]

I thought I throw in an interesting line of a conversation between AK and her mother mentioned in the Motivations report:

"Further on Amanda goes on, saying ‚That is, I know that she had seen him before, but I don’t know why she let him into the house.‛"

So he didn't come through the window Amanda?

Correction: it is her father and here is the whole conversation:

OK, so maybe Rudy DID do the staging as conjectured...:waitasec:

Quote:
Amanda: ‚Yes, I know, I know, I mean I hardly know him ... I never invited him to my house before.‛
Father: ‚Do you believe that Meredith did so?‛
Amanda: ‚Ah, I know that she knows him through Giacomo ... therefore‛
Father: ‚Is he one of the boys downstairs?‛
Amanda: ‚Yes, he was her boyfriend ... therefore ... perhaps he was saying: I’m looking for Giacomo ... can I come in? Or something like that...‛
Further on Amanda goes on, saying ‚That is, I know that she had seen him before, but I don’t know why she let him into the house.‛:waitasec: so maybe if MK did let him in, he then did stage. It is possible.

 

[claudicici]

....but why would AK say that? Out of all people shouldn't she insist there was a break in? (whether she is guilty or not)
The reason I think it's staged is that I just can't imagine anyone climbing that straight wall,the picture showing the guy standing on the window only makes me think,where would he put his hands to push up? The ledge is too thin,he can't grab the broken window?
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 ?

 

[SMK]

....but why would AK say that? Out of all people shouldn't she insist there was a break in? (whether she is guilty or not)
The reason I think it's staged is that I just can't imagine anyone climbing that straight wall,the picture showing the guy standing on the window only makes me think,where would he put his hands to push up? The ledge is too thin,he can't grab the broken window?
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 ?

Very good point. There may have been TWO crimes, with theirs being the lesser, and the murder being the greater, and the two got intertwined. :waitasec:

 

[dgfred]

The report is full of very narrow-minded conclusions. Such as the one I pointed out which said that the father, knowing what time RS got up everyday called him and since AK never mentioned the call, that means she wasn't there to hear it. OR it could mean she was tired and knocked out-sleep.

They said that AK had no reason to go home and take a shower at the cottage since she'd taken one and washed her hair the night before.

OR--if she showered and then she and RS had sed afterward, then I can understand why she'd want a shower. To jump to the conclusion of why she'd need a shower, rather than looking at what RS and AK told them is insane. They stated that they'd had sex, so isn't it logical that she might WANT another shower? Maybe she ran out of clothes and needed to get a change from home, but they say she should have brought her clothes with her because she and RS had plans to go to a nearby city.

What time were these plans? maybe she thought she had time to go home and shower. I don't get it. Because she didn't bring a change of clothes with her to RS's, she's a lying murderer.

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.

 

[dgfred]

....but why would AK say that? Out of all people shouldn't she insist there was a break in? (whether she is guilty or not)
The reason I think it's staged is that I just can't imagine anyone climbing that straight wall,the picture showing the guy standing on the window only makes me think,where would he put his hands to push up? The ledge is too thin,he can't grab the broken window?
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 ?

This sure is confusing. First the debate (that never is settled) is whether it really is a break in or not. Then the debate morphs into whether AK or RG would have done the staging... after long debate why someone REALLY DID break in even tho there is no evidence of that. Which is it?

So maybe some of the ones debating for the innocence of AK/RS would state their position on the break in. :waitasec: :fence:

Believes it is a staging by 'someone':
or
Believes there was an actual break in/burglary attempt:


This would help with some of those circular arguments.

 

[SMK]

This sure is confusing. First the debate (that never is settled) is whether it really is a break in or not. Then the debate morphs into whether AK or RG would have done the staging... after long debate why someone REALLY DID break in even tho there is no evidence of that. Which is it?

So maybe some of the ones debating for the innocence of AK/RS would state their position on the break in. :waitasec: :fence:

Believes it is a staging by 'someone':
or
Believes there was an actual break in/burglary attempt:


This would help with some of those circular arguments.

Cannot decide. :snooty::snooty::rollercoaster:

 

[dgfred]

these were not the proper police to investigate a breakin. Postal Police don't do that, do they? If so, let me know. Otherwise, they should have told her not to touch it until investigators got there. Since AK and RS said it was a break in up to that point, and were thus referred to a different type of police, then I guess that means the PP does NOT handle it, but correct me if i'm wrong.

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.

 

[SMK]

....but why would AK say that? Out of all people shouldn't she insist there was a break in? (whether she is guilty or not)
The reason I think it's staged is that I just can't imagine anyone climbing that straight wall,the picture showing the guy standing on the window only makes me think,where would he put his hands to push up? The ledge is too thin,he can't grab the broken window?
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 ?

The only other thing I can think of is that AK had heard the scene was staged, and had "consciousness of innocence" and figured the police would figure that part out, and was simply musing about RG getting in. I sometimes muse myself in circles, contradict myself (as with this case)

 

[SMK]

Too bad this Appeal is based on such narrow data. Most of the things we are discussing, which I think are truly important and raise many questions, will not even enter in. If it is just the bra clasp, the knife, and the witness, that is not much to work with to overturn a conviction, is it?

 

[OldSteve]

It's a discussion forum, jenny. We're discussing possibilities. And there is no "Vulcan mind meld"--not even among those who question the verdicts. Some of us retain suspicions but feel proof beyond reasonable doubt is lacking; others are convinced RG broke in through FR's window and was then surprised on the john by MK's return. As you can see, others think AK and RS may have been accomplices after the fact.

Frankly, no theory really covers all the bases without some quite large leap of faith. I acknowledge there are difficulties in RG's getting in through FR's window. But I also find it preposterous that AK formed an instant murder/rape conspiracy with two guys she barely knew (and who did not know one another) in a language she was still learning.

Likewise I remain unconvinced of two key axioms of the pro-verdict faction: that MK would never have admitted RG, and that RG could not have staged the break-in himself. As I've said, I can envision scenarios where both of these events transpired (which is not to say I can prove they did).

The idea of MK letting RG in through the door bothers me mostly because the Motivation Report so casually dismisses the idea as impossible. And if that's indicative of judge and juror reasoning in this case, then I have doubts about the entire process.

Wow! You stated my feeling to a T!
I seriously doubt a gal who is in a new romantic situation, as AK was with RS, would get involved in an impromptu sex orgy, let along one involving rape and murder.
It makes zero sense for her to want her man to get involved with another gal.

 

[SMK]

Wow! You stated my feeling to a T!
I seriously doubt a gal who is in a new romantic situation, as AK was with RS, would get involved in an impromptu sex orgy, let along one involving rape and murder.
It makes zero sense for her to want her man to get involved with another gal.

Yes, indeed - from the beginning, it struck me as much more of a middle-aged person's fantasy (as in Giuliano Mignini) than something a 20 year old in love would be hankering after. :waitasec:

 

[SMK]

@OldSteve: Another thought: If Amanda was doing well in her classes, enjoying Perugia and her newfound love, why would she plan a knife attack and rape, knowing Meredith would boot her out of the cottage, report her to authorities? It does not sound like something a person with a life would do, but more like a desparate drifter like Guede IMO.

 

[SMK]

Addendum Contrawise, the case would be different if Knox and Sollecito were truly pathological or criminal or both. If they had suffered molestation in their childhoods, this could make them abnormal sexually and given to paraphillia. But where was there ever any evidence of this? So leads back in a circle to no motive.

 

[otto]

Addendum Contrawise, the case would be different if Knox and Sollecito were truly pathological or criminal or both. If they had suffered molestation in their childhoods, this could make them abnormal sexually and given to paraphillia. But where was there ever any evidence of this? So leads back in a circle to no motive.

Not all sexual predators were abused as children.

 

[otto]

It seems like we're theorizing that all bad people look and act a certain way that makes them identifiable and if we don't see them look and act that way, they cannot be criminals. People with no history of childhood problems, and those with perfectly upstanding lives, have been known to commit horrible crimes. Appearance and personal history is not a factor in determining whether someone does evil things to other people. It is a point that lawyer raise to attempt to get clients with childhood problems out of taking full responsibility for their actions.

 

[SMK]

Not all sexual predators were abused as children.

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.

 

[SMK]

I wonder if that link has been banned from this site at some point.

Must be so.

 

[Recovering-Lurker]

I wonder if that link has been banned from this site at some point.

Right, urls that show up as xxxxx are not allowed to be posted on WS.

 

[SMK]

Not all sexual predators were abused as children.

I have actually never read of a case of bizarre and extreme sexual violence where there was NOT some serious abuse and neglect in childhood. Humans are wired to be normal unless something goes astray. I do not believe in genetic evil.

 

[otto]

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.

What makes them different? Criminals come from all walks of life. Why should we expect that these three criminals have some blatant history of problems?

Furthermore, if we want to look at problems in them, we can find them ... but there is no correlation between bad childhood and criminal behavior, so what is the point?

Additionally, I think I can probably predict the direction the discussion would take if we started dissecting Knox, Sollecito and Guede for problems ... someone would mention that Meredith smoked pot too ... and so on. It would become some sort of comparison between the murderer and the victim. Why go there ... again?