Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #20

[Allusonz]

The friend states that she was so traumatized immediately after the murder that she could not process what Knox was saying and doing, especially when Knox made remarks like "she *advertiser censored***** bled to death".

The friend did not say that Knox knew this from overhearing conversation in Italian (which we know Knox couldn't speak or understand at the time). It is a sentence in the article with the family offering an excuse for Knox knowing too much too soon: "Knox's family have said that she knew some of the details of the murder because they were openly discussed by people at the crime scene."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...chers-friend-Perugia-can-be-a-dark-place.html

Not sure what the point is. She did bleed to death.

 

[SkewedView]

Well now, this is an interesting exchange on Nadeau's twitter:


https://twitter.com/#!/BLNadeau

BLNadeau Barbie Latza Nadeau
Supreme court ruling in #amandaknox case: prosecution wanted to enter a document outlining precedent where a… (cont) deck.ly/~VJmaK
15 hours ago

»
Lady Orchid
LadyoftheRealm Lady Orchid
@
@BLNadeau R U saying that the prosecutions want to outline when appellate court can ruled against supreme court?
15 hours ago

in reply to ↑
Barbie Latza Nadeau
@BLNadeau Barbie Latza Nadeau
@LadyoftheRealm yes, post-court chatter is that it was masked threat to jury but comodi referred to case in her close so it is on table

If that 'post-court chatter' reflects how the Judges and 'Lay-Judges' perceive that move by Comodi, that can't go over well, and really seems to indicate to me that she has completely lost control here.

 

[iluvmua]

I def. think Amanda knows what happened that night........

But I don't get all of the odd behavior after the discovery of Meredith's body and during her trial, and why all the lying too?

I def. think Rudy is the main suspect and A & R helped cover it up.

 

[SkewedView]

I am surprised no one has commented on Comodi's cooking lesson recipes and all.

Seems that a number of things were measured wrong by Stephanoni. The abundant amount of DNA on the bra clasp which in testimony were measured in litres when they actually were milliliters. Those pesky aphids I mean alleles were handpicked. You certainly don't want anyone to know how many aphids there are as long as dinner is placed on the table in time. Seems that the oven temperature for the knife was too low but no problem she simply cranked that oven temperature up. Ingredients were stored in the wrong containers . Those spices really don't like plastic bags much. That is ok, they are made in the USA. Most chefs insist that you simply must carefully inspect and select produce. What the heck everyone wanted in on the action so they all helped. Produce should be washed carefully to avoid food poisoning. Who cares how many get sick. Who cares how old the ingredients are, no one can date them anyway. Darn, those recipes simply did not taste right. No problemo, she made up brand new ones. Lets experiment. Take a few spices out; add a After all who is going to find out. To show the extreme care that goes into creating this feast it was decided to televise live for all to see :giggle:

*shrug*

That type of summation is an extremely common, if very abused, technique used by prosecutors and defense attorneys alike, misleading comparisons and all, so I really didn't bat an eye at it. Thus, I have no real comments to offer on her little cooking class.

That said, if I were a Juror, I would be very offended if a lawyer felt it necessary to dumb down explanations of the evidence. Then again, I believe in Jury Nullification, so I'd never get picked for Jury duty anyway.

 

[SkewedView]

Glad to give you the opportunity to debate in a way that I'm sure feels broad-minded and ecumenical, but, no.

The US State Department is under no illusions about the corruption inherent in the Italian polity. Unless you can give me a relevant example of precedent from the last couple decades relating to Italy, I'll call BS. And continue to assert that, minus the retroactive kerfuffle of pulling strings to extract her from prison, we would have protected one of our own in the face of these backward, fascist provincials.

Those 'backward, fascist provincials' are a political ally of the US, and former employees of the State Dept. have made it clear in interviews and books that it concerns itself with maintaining good relations with such allies before it worries about protecting the average schmuck. And for them to block a legitimate political process, especially given the extremely bad PR that they would be exposing the Administration to by protecting someone accused of a particularly nasty murder who was already being convicted in the court of public opinion - I'd have to say that I'd be pretty shocked and dismayed if they were to do such a thing.

Had this all happened in Iran or Libya or some other nation that the US is not so friendly with, or if AK were the progeny of someone important, it would be a different matter. As it stands, however, the average American in these situations is more likely to get help from Amnesty International than from their own government, sad as that sounds.

And since when did the US government concern itself with how nasty their allies are anyway? I mean, have you seen the regimes that the US has backed up 100 percent in the past fifty years, or the atrocities that they have committed while the US turned a blind eye? Compared to that Italy's flawed but slowly improving Justice System looks just fine for trying a murder case.

 

[SkewedView]

Knox was a witness, not a suspect. She was told to be available to police durig the early stages of the investigation per her police recorded phone call with her aunt. She did not stay in Italy to help police, as is often claimed.

Soooo...was she a witness, and thus only requested to stick around (but realistically free to go, and thus staying to help), or was she a suspect, and thus ordered to stay? Can't have it both ways, even in Italy.

 

[SkewedView]

I'm sure that Meredith's friends remained in Italy until police cleared them. I don't think that the friend is saying that she believes Knox is guilty because Meredith was uncomfortable with the vibrator.

"Natalie Hayward described how a series of incidents in the run-up to Miss Kercher's death have convinced her that Knox - sentenced to 26 years for the brutal murder - should not be freed as a result of the appeal now nearing its conclusion in an Italian court.

"Now 25, she cited Knox's strange behaviour and apparent inside knowledge of the details of the murder in the hours after it was revealed, as well as her false accusations against a local bar-owner, as reasons for her belief.

In addition, she said tensions between the two women, who shared a flat, had been building up for weeks.

Miss Kercher was "frustrated" with the University of Washington student's refusal to do her share of the cleaning, and felt uncomfortable that Knox kept a vibrator in a transparent wash bag in their shared bathroom. Relations were not improved by Knox's insistence on strumming her guitar all the time, Miss Hayward added.

...

Miss Hayward and the other British girls were suspicious that Knox seemed to have knowledge of the crime scene, despite police saying she had not seen inside the bedroom, where Miss Kercher lay in a pool of blood with her throat cut.

...

That in itself doesn't mean she's the culprit, but when you put it with everything else..."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...chers-friend-Perugia-can-be-a-dark-place.html

Although you continue to miss my point, you have proven it right here. Thank you.

 

[SkewedView]

The friend states that she was so traumatized immediately after the murder that she could not process what Knox was saying and doing, especially when Knox made remarks like "she *advertiser censored***** bled to death".

The friend did not say that Knox knew this from overhearing conversation in Italian (which we know Knox couldn't speak or understand at the time). It is a sentence in the article with the family offering an excuse for Knox knowing too much too soon: "Knox's family have said that she knew some of the details of the murder because they were openly discussed by people at the crime scene."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...chers-friend-Perugia-can-be-a-dark-place.html

And I'm sure that AK's Italian boyfriend who was with her the whole time doesn't speak or understand Italian either, and even if he did, he'd never tell his upset girlfriend what was going on, no, never. People in shock never react to stupid statements with shocking outbursts either. Right.

See what I meant about her (and others') assumptions regarding AK's behavior yet?

 

[SkewedView]

That article highlights what little evidence of Knox's "Bad behavior" was actually witnessed. From the way this friend phrased things, it would seem that MK was the one annoyed with AK, not the other way around. I find it worth noting that the friend never said AK did anything TO MK, only that MK was becoming annoyed by AK.

I hardly see guitar stumming, sloppiness, and vibrators as a reason to kill. This friend doesn't recall MK ever saying she confronted AK about it. It might have happened, but from what I've studied AK, seemed taken aback to learn that people where annoyed by her. I don't believe I recall anyone, not the roommates, not the boyfriends, not the friends, saying that MK vocalized her annoyance TO AK. I have yet to read testimony or statements that assert that AK did something mean or harmful to MK in the days leading up to the murder. I don't even recall hearing that the two had argued about anything.

If anyone knows of a specific argument or confrontation, school me. Otherwise, I can hardly imagine that MK picked that night (when she was tired from being out all night and going to her friends' house earlier, and having laundry and studying to do) to suddenly "go off" on AK about these things, and that AK in turn ordered two men to sexually assault and murder MK for it, then steal her money and phones, but nothing else to make it look like a break-in. Sounds illogical.

I think if the friends and family really think AK did it, then they need to talk about solid "circumstantial evidence." I'd be more likely to consider what they say if they could tell specficially what these ladies didn't get along about, and if there was an actual confrontation, etc. Then If I get confirmation of that from the actual people living in the building, I'd believe it.

In many crimes of passion cases i've read, usually, there are events leading up to the murder. I'm talking arguments witnessed by others, restraining orders, police reports, the victim mentioning feeling threatened, etc. So I'm asking what chain of events can we link to the murder? Right now, we just hear that MK was generally annoyed and probably slowly fading out of her friendship with AK because of it.

I'd completely understand MK's view, IF AK was indeed being annoying. AK's family and friends have said that she can be annoying and igorant of how others feel about her. So for me, putting together the knowledge from the British pack, and from AK's loved ones, I see a scenerio where MK readily befriended AK, but after making friends with the British pack, AK's quirkiness became more obviously annoying. As MK gravitated to her new friends and her boyfriend, she was distancing herself from AK. This is evident in the fact that AK wanted to hook up for Halloween, but MK wasn't responsive to it.

I don't believe, that if the girls, MK and AK, were fighting with each other, that AK would have sought to hook up on Halloween. What I can believe is that MK had told her friends how annoying AK was, and they had agreed, and the pack had been talking about AK's annoyances and concluded they didn't want to hang around AK. Even if MK still kind of liked AK, I could see how slight peer pressure might have caused her to pull away. And I can see how Ak's ignorance of knowing when people are doing that, coupled with MK probably trying to be nice about it, would have led AK to not realize MK didn't really want to spend time with her anymore.

I don't put MK at fault for her feelings changing about AK, if that in fact happened. But what I don't correlate is how that culminated in murder. I really need Mk's friends' statements to see if there was a history of arguments between MK and AK because it's hard to picture how a first-time arument among roommates would get so outrageously out of hand.

This deserves repeating.

 

[Allusonz]

*shrug*

That type of summation is an extremely common, if very abused, technique used by prosecutors and defense attorneys alike, misleading comparisons and all, so I really didn't bat an eye at it. Thus, I have no real comments to offer on her little cooking class.

That said, if I were a Juror, I would be very offended if a lawyer felt it necessary to dumb down explanations of the evidence. Then again, I believe in Jury Nullification, so I'd never get picked for Jury duty anyway.

Thanks!! I thought it was just me

 

[js202]

So true. And the point to me is the absurdity of the narratives, which the prosecution can't even keep straight.

As for MK, however, what 18- or 19-year-old woman (or man) DOES have great judgment? Those should be years of experimentation and learning, so I don't fault her for that (and her taste in men appears to have had little or nothing to do with her murder).

I just get tired of hearing how the Wicked Witch of the West convinced her flying monkeys to murder Dorothy Gale. That's not even how that story goes!

Mostly agreed on 19 year old judgment, but my main point was to the apparent fact that AK indeed seemed to have employed *better judgment* in her choice of a boyfriend in Italy.

That is, unless, deep within Raffaele's soul lurked a crazed sex killer just crying to be coaxed out, in a week's time, by a wicked Luciferina. In that case, Giacomo's drug-dealing, rather menacing visage and silly earrings pale in comparison, of course.

 

[SkewedView]

Culture Clash

@ ... upthread that Mignini mentioned the vibrator. The word alone means little. However, the fact that Meredith was uncomfortable with Knox's display of sexuality (vibrator, condoms in clear plastic container hung in the bathroom) was probably not a secret. Knox not pitching in at the cottage was also mentioned way back at the beginning.

The relevance/implication is threefold; Meredith was uncomfortabe with this immodest and crass display (tells us something about the victim), there was tension between them (goes to motive) and Italians, generally modest (like the victim), would identify with Meredith in this dispute: to leave your vibrator on display in a shared accommodation bathroom, or not. Knox probably knew that Meredith was uncomfortable with her habits. She was not respectful of Meredith. She also did not keep up her responsibilities of taking her turn to clean the bathroom. Knox confirmed that there was no blood on the bathroom faucet at 5 PM the night before, so it got there at the time of the murder. How did her blood get there during that time period again?

So, the main point of including the vibrator in the closing argument was to take advantage of the Judges'/Lay-Judges' probable Catholic sensibilities and hangups. Thank you for adding (however unintentionally) to my hypothesis regarding the issue.

I'm confused about something though:
Is AK a total slob who wouldn't notice a small blob of blood on a faucet that she never cleans, or is she a detail oriented, clean person who would certainly have noticed such a thing? This would seem to be another scenario where people want it both ways.

 

[js202]

Those 'backward, fascist provincials' are a political ally of the US, and former employees of the State Dept. have made it clear in interviews and books that it concerns itself with maintaining good relations with such allies before it worries about protecting the average schmuck. And for them to block a legitimate political process, especially given the extremely bad PR that they would be exposing the Administration to by protecting someone accused of a particularly nasty murder who was already being convicted in the court of public opinion - I'd have to say that I'd be pretty shocked and dismayed if they were to do such a thing.

Had this all happened in Iran or Libya or some other nation that the US is not so friendly with, or if AK were the progeny of someone important, it would be a different matter. As it stands, however, the average American in these situations is more likely to get help from Amnesty International than from their own government, sad as that sounds.

And since when did the US government concern itself with how nasty their allies are anyway? I mean, have you seen the regimes that the US has backed up 100 percent in the past fifty years, or the atrocities that they have committed while the US turned a blind eye? Compared to that Italy's flawed but slowly improving Justice System looks just fine for trying a murder case.

Interesting points, but what are your examples of precedent?

In fact, in the case of American Marine pilot Richard Ashby, Italian and American authorities colluded so that he would not be tried by an Italian court. Given that Ashby was blatantly hotdogging as he sheared the gondola lines at the Italian ski resort, I have mixed feelings about him being protected from his day in Italian court. Not so with Amanda Knox's Season in Hell in rustic Perugia...

My reference to the Perugian provincials is unassailable; they have proven themselves that, and worse. Our direct dealings to prevent a hypothetical extradition of Amanda Knox would, of course, have been with Rome. And based on the empathy toward Amanda Knox from some Roman politicians, I suspect there would have been sympathies sufficient to have greased the wheels in a case obviously based on hysteria as opposed to physical evidence.

 

[SkewedView]

Thanks!! I thought it was just me

Just don't be surprised if the Defense uses similar tactics. As I said, it's a very common strategy.

 

[SkewedView]

Interesting points, but what are your examples of precedent?

In fact, in the case of American Marine pilot Richard Ashby, Italian and American authorities colluded so that he would not be tried by an Italian court. Given that Ashby was blatantly hotdogging as he sheared the gondola lines at the Italian ski resort, I have mixed feelings about him being protected from his day in Italian court. Not so with Amanda Knox's Season in Hell in rustic Perugia...

My reference to the Perugian provincials is unassailable; they have proven themselves that, and worse. Our direct dealings to prevent a hypothetical extradition of Amanda Knox would, of course, have been with Rome. And based on the empathy toward Amanda Knox from some Roman politicians, I suspect there would have been sympathies sufficient to have greased the wheels in a case obviously based on hysteria as opposed to physical evidence.

Ashby's actions were tied into his status as a member of the US Military, thus making him a 'special case' - read that as a politically motivated one. Again, there is nothing special about AK or her family to warrant fighting a battle against a legitimate process that would also have been supported by the majority of the American public at the time (remember, it was a very hostile media environment for AK in the first two years). In addition, the sympathy from Roman politicos is a more recent phenomena, thus has no bearing on our hypothetical scenario.

Is rampant corruption and state-ism a huge problem in Italy? The EU Human Rights Court seems to think so, but again, compare it to some of the truly horrendous South & Central American regimes that even now are illegitimately imprisoning Americans in far more dubious fashion while the State Dept. does nothing. Go to Amnesty International's website for some examples.

Truly, I would like to think that at least under Hillary Clinton, the State Dept. would put politics and diplomacy second to the needs of individual citizens, but in the end it is an agency that answers to politicians, forcing it to act in a cynical manner utterly foreign to the picture you paint. If you want idealists out to protect people from injustice, you have to look to organizations like Amnesty International and other human rights watchdogs, not to the government.

 

[Monzoo]

It sure has. And what bothers me about Mignini mentioning the vibrator and condoms: If we were back in the 1940s, one might paint a picture of the virgin who is killed by the depraved, sexual, drinking bad girl. But ALL of the girls in the cottage smoked pot, drank wine, were sexually active, were not against having sex with drug dealers, etc. Vibrators may or may not be a good idea (I happen to think they are an attempt to make female sexuality like male sexuality: a fun release, which historically, has not been the case socially)---but in the 21st century, they are a normal and college-y thing---it is not as though Amanda had some sexual torture items in her room. One would think Mignini himself, being part of the global Baby Boomer generation, would take a different tack. Lots of roommates annoy others with crass habits: How does this lead to murder?

This is getting to one of the things that really bother me about this case. So much effort has been spent by the prosecution to create a dichotomy between Meredith and Amanda -- Meredith being a sainted and pure girl while Amanda is portayed as an evil *advertiser censored*. At the same time, nothing is said about either Raffaele or Rudy. Really. Rudy's DNA is found within Meredith, but he does not warrant the same kind of vilification Amanda does.

To me, this is another form of misogyny. It treats women as somehow lesser beings that don't have the nuance that men do -- they are only either 100% good or 100% evil.

And honestly, Amanda and Meredith seem to be very similar at the time of the murder. College age girls away from home. Both dating locals, both into partying -- both have been described by their friends in glowing terms.

Why is there such a movement to hide Meredith's partying and sexuality -- both of which I think are absolutely normal for a girl of her age -- while overemphasizing Amanda's?

 

[js202]

Ashby's actions were tied into his status as a member of the US Military, thus making him a 'special case' - read that as a politically motivated one. Again, there is nothing special about AK or her family to warrant fighting a battle against a legitimate process that would also have been supported by the majority of the American public at the time (remember, it was a very hostile media environment for AK in the first two years). In addition, the sympathy from Roman politicos is a more recent phenomena, thus has no bearing on our hypothetical scenario.

Is rampant corruption and state-ism a huge problem in Italy? The EU Human Rights Court seems to think so, but again, compare it to some of the truly horrendous South & Central American regimes that even now are illegitimately imprisoning Americans in far more dubious fashion while the State Dept. does nothing. Go to Amnesty International's website for some examples.

Truly, I would like to think that at least under Hillary Clinton, the State Dept. would put politics and diplomacy second to the needs of individual citizens, but in the end it is an agency that answers to politicians, forcing it to act in a cynical manner utterly foreign to the picture you paint. If you want idealists out to protect people from injustice, you have to look to organizations like Amnesty International and other human rights watchdogs, not to the government.

Mostly solid points, but I expected that you would set out Ashby as an exception based on his military status. In fact, there have been comparable incidents in Asia involving American soldiers where what you assert did not occur:

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/26/w...roops-accused-of-murder-or-rape-to-japan.html


At the end of the day, both of our positions are speculative. I remain convinced that, after a review of the paucity of evidence against Amanda Knox, our government would not have subjected her to an obvious kangaroo court, with a prosecutor with a record of abuse of office and a horrible reputation in general.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[SMK]

This is getting to one of the things that really bother me about this case. So much effort has been spent by the prosecution to create a dichotomy between Meredith and Amanda -- Meredith being a sainted and pure girl while Amanda is portayed as an evil *advertiser censored*. At the same time, nothing is said about either Raffaele or Rudy. Really. Rudy's DNA is found within Meredith, but he does not warrant the same kind of vilification Amanda does.

To me, this is another form of misogyny. It treats women as somehow lesser beings that don't have the nuance that men do -- they are only either 100% good or 100% evil.

And honestly, Amanda and Meredith seem to be very similar at the time of the murder. College age girls away from home. Both dating locals, both into partying -- both have been described by their friends in glowing terms.

Why is there such a movement to hide Meredith's partying and sexuality -- both of which I think are absolutely normal for a girl of her age -- while overemphasizing Amanda's?

Because apparently Mignini is taking his cue from that old 1940s film Rebecca, starring Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine (Joan played the virginal good girl; Rebecca was depraved, smoked, drank, and took lovers). One of the lines I recall was from Laurence Olivier, speaking about when he found out Rebecca was a she -devil: She told me things about herself; things I would never repeat to anyone. I remember her smoking, laughing...

 

[js202]

I def. think Amanda knows what happened that night........

But I don't get all of the odd behavior after the discovery of Meredith's body and during her trial, and why all the lying too?

I def. think Rudy is the main suspect and A & R helped cover it up.

Please expand on your hypothesis. What motivation did AK and RS have to "help cover it up?" What was their relationship to, and connection with Rudy Guede that they would have done such a thing?

 

[SkewedView]

Mostly solid points, but I expected that you would set out Ashby as an exception based on his military status. In fact, there have been comparable incidents in Asia involving American soldiers where what you assert did not occur:

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/26/w...roops-accused-of-murder-or-rape-to-japan.html


At the end of the day, both of our positions are speculative. I remain convinced that, after a review of the paucity of evidence against Amanda Knox, our government would not have subjected her to an obvious kangaroo court, with a prosecutor with a record of abuse of office and a horrible reputation in general.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Respectfully bolded by me.

Indeed, as this is a wholly hypothetical discussion anyway, there really is no true answer, just some fun back and forth.

One thing first: I should point out that it took the US base on Okinawa almost getting booted by the Japanese for those soldiers to stop being protected. Again, political motivations trump anything else (and some of those charges were dubious indeed, though most were solid). In addition, these problems didn't disappear after that point, they just fell out of the spotlight. I highly recommend delving into the Japanese/Okinawan/US relations with regards to the US military presence there, it's fascinating reading.


ETA: Oops, should have said that the base was threatened by the Japanese & Okinawans, especially the latter - the natives of that island consider themselves racially, socially & politically distinct from the Japanese, a position that I respect given their history.