Amanda Knox found guilty for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy #15

[LinasK]

In the early stages of this investigation, Raffaelle and the press were told that there was clear video evidence of Amanda going to the cottage the night of the murder.

This was was a blatant lie intended to defame Amanda. If you disagree,<modsnip> providing a link.

Why is that a lie? Maybe at point, he was throwing her under the bus to save his own skin???

 

[Amber29]

Amanda is an odd duck. She is not comfortable speaking. That is obvious.

I think this will be reversed again. This court had nothing new and nothing more than the Appeals court when it found her and RS not guilty.

Doubtful. Hellmann was annulled for being illogical in his reasoning, mostly for his hand waving of evidence. That's unlikely to happen with Nencini.

 

[Madeleine74]

I find the imagined scenarios to be of no use to me. I don't claim to know what happened but neither do I claim to 'know' anyone involved in this case let alone what they were thinking/feeling that night or any other night. Creating fictionalized stories to support a position is common but ultimately invalid.

The truth is NONE of us know AK or RS or their thoughts and to suggest otherwise is a fallacy.

That's why I like to stick to evidence, specifically evidence I can see or read or hear for myself. I don't want to have to use my imagination when it comes to a crime case. My imagination is not valid evidence and neither is anyone else's. And the minute someone uses their "feelings" to ascertain someone's guilt or innocence...well... gameOver.

 

[Linda7NJ]

In the early stages of this investigation, Raffaelle and the press were told that there was clear video evidence of Amanda going to the cottage the night of the murder.



This was was a blatant lie intended to defame Amanda. If you disagree, <modsnip> providing a link.

I have nothing to prove.

LE here in the USA tell suspects all the time untruths during interrogations to ferret out the truth, it perfectly acceptable and legAl.

 

[otto]

The key here is "Inside MK's bedroom"-that is not the entire crime scene. Amanda keeps stating that there is reasonable doubt because there is no evidence of her in the bedroom. That statement seems so shady to me when I look at everything in totality. She does not have to be in the bedroom to be involved. Instigating, having knowledge of what happened, and cleaning up is still involvement in my opinion.There is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of these things in my opinion. She keeps pointing out "reasonable doubt" because of the lack of evidence against her specifically in the bedroom. The fact that she contains her innocence to specifically evidence not being in the bedroom is enough reasonable doubt of involvement in the murder to me.

Essentially, Knox is claiming that in order to properly understand the murder of Meredith Kercher, one must restrict the crime scene to Meredith's bedroom. Knox wants everyone to exclude the evidence outside the bedroom, including the broken window. Knox claims that Meredith was her friend, but in the same breath states that anything outside of Meredith's bedroom should be excluded from the investigation.

Is that what friends do, or is that what guilty people hope for?

 

[Amber29]

I find the imagined scenarios to be of no use to me. I don't claim to know what happened but neither do I claim to 'know' anyone involved in this case let alone what they were thinking/feeling that night or any other night. Creating fictionalized stories to support a position is common but ultimately invalid.

The truth is NONE of us know AK or RS or their thoughts and to suggest otherwise is a fallacy.

That's why I like to stick to evidence, specifically evidence I can see or read or hear for myself. I don't want to have to use my imagination when it comes to a crime case. My imagination is not valid evidence and neither is anyone else's. And the minute someone uses their "feelings" to ascertain someone's guilt or innocence...well... gameOver.

Can't this be said for all murder cases where the suspect maintains their innocence? If a murderer never reveals what happened we never know. Most the time motives are based on someone's assumption of what happened. It's quite the guessing game. That's why motives aren't required.

 

[Madeleine74]

That's correct. I don't know what motive, if any, AK or RS would have to harm MK (and neither does anyone else here). I can correctly infer RG's intent based on his actions: sexual assault, theft. He might not have intended to murder, but he did that too. Without knowing any of the people involved in this case or even their names I know this: the person who left their DNA on/in the victim at the time of her murder, in her bedroom, in her apartment, and they did not live there, was not invited there, and stole from said murder victim in addition, is a person I know is definitely involved BARD. I don't need any 'stories' or someone's 'imaginings/speculation' to know that much.

 

[otto]

Inside of MK's bedroom is where the murder took place. No one is disputing that. Evidence of what happened to MK is in that bedroom and on MK's body. It is where the body was left, where the body was found. There's evidence of exactly one person interacting with MK at the scene of her death and at the time of her death. That's what I can discern without any doubt whatsoever. I can't say that about the other evidence.

By that definition of a crime scene, Jason Young is innocent as there is no evidence in the bedroom to suggest that he is responsible for the murder of his wife. All the evidence at the hotel, and in his car should be excluded, and his odd behavior should be overlooked.

Why is there a double standard such that one definition of a crime scene is promoted for one murder, and a different definition of a crime scene, or location for collecting relevant evidence, is promoted for another murder?

 

[Amber29]

Inside of MK's bedroom is where the murder took place. No one is disputing that. Evidence of what happened to MK is in that bedroom and on MK's body. It is where the body was left, where the body was found. There's evidence of exactly one person interacting with MK at the scene of her death and at the time of her death. That's what I can discern without any doubt whatsoever. I can't say that about the other evidence.

So no DNA found means someone wasn't there?

Then the same can be said of RG in Filomenas room and the small bathroom, after all he as a lone wolf would've washed up in that bathroom. Some how managing to leave no dna and getting no blood on the floor. There was evidence of AK in both those rooms, in mixed samples with Meredith, one being in a spot uncovered with luminol.

The entire cottage is a crimescene.

 

[Madeleine74]

By that definition of a crime scene, Jason Young is innocent as there is no evidence in the bedroom to suggest that he is responsible for the murder of his wife. All the evidence at the hotel, and in his car should be excluded, and his odd behavior should be overlooked.

Why is there a double standard such that one definition of a crime scene is promoted for one murder, and a different definition of a crime scene, or location for collecting relevant evidence, is promoted for another murder?

Arguing one case with another completely unrelated case is a common but invalid technique. And, there is evidence of JY at the murder scene of his wife, physical and other photographic from that same night. But that has nothing to do with the Kercher case.

 

[Madeleine74]

So no DNA found means someone wasn't there?

Well, where's the proof they were there in the room at the time of the murder? I can't find it. I need some evidence to say "yes, they were in that room that night."

Then the same can be said of RG in Filomenas room and the small bathroom, after all he as a lone wolf would've washed up in that bathroom. Some how managing to leave no dna and getting no blood on the floor. There was evidence of AK in both those rooms, in mixed samples with Meredith, one being in a spot uncovered with luminol.

There is ample evidence of RG in that apt, which is a place he did not live and was not invited to. There is ample evidence of RG in MK's room, and on/in MK's body. Amanda lived in that apt.

 

[JaneyBGood]

But she did tell lie after lie after lie.

But she did point the finger away from herself ...at an innocent and was content for two weeks to let him rot in jail. Hey, as long as she got away with it though right?

But she did attempt to mislead the police

But she did stage the scene

But she did act bizarrely afterwards. In ways incongruent with the way normal people react. She was all about self soothing, self absorbed and sexualized behaviors.

Hmmmm when I think of more she has in common with Casey & Jodi I'll update the list.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmmm...perhaps because she was a YOUNG adult (whose brain may I add was still developing) in a FOREIGN COUNTRY, ALONE ( without family or FAIR legal representation) trying to comprehend a horrible, tragic situation. And I respectfully disagree that she staged the scene.....there is NO PROOF indicating it was Knox that staged the scene

 

[Linda7NJ]

I find the imagined scenarios to be of no use to me. I don't claim to know what happened but neither do I claim to 'know' anyone involved in this case let alone what they were thinking/feeling that night or any other night. Creating fictionalized stories to support a position is common but ultimately invalid.

The truth is NONE of us know AK or RS or their thoughts and to suggest otherwise is a fallacy.

That's why I like to stick to evidence, specifically evidence I can see or read or hear for myself. I don't want to have to use my imagination when it comes to a crime case. My imagination is not valid evidence and neither is anyone else's. And the minute someone uses their "feelings" to ascertain someone's guilt or innocence...well... gameOver.

I don't know about other parts of the world, but here...motive doesn't need to be proven in order to convict. Discerning a motive is always attempting to entering someone else's head. A murderers head. Unless of course the murderer documented it in writing or in video ...but then...I'm not sure what a killer says...should be swallowed 100%. I'm of the mindset no one can ever know what they were thinking.

 

[Amber29]

That's correct. I don't know what motive, if any, AK or RS would have to harm MK (and neither does anyone else here). I can correctly infer RG's intent based on his actions: sexual assault, theft. He might not have intended to murder, but he did that too. Without knowing any of the people involved in this case or even their names I know this: the person who left their DNA on/in the victim at the time of her murder, in her bedroom, in her apartment, and they did not live there, was not invited there, and stole from said murder victim in addition, is a person I know is definitely involved BARD. I don't need any 'stories' or someone's 'imaginings/speculation' to know that much.

How do you "know" RG stole from her? The purse on the bed was an empty purse, it was not the purse Meredith was carrying the night she was killed and it was collected on dec 18th after sitting there for 46days.

 

[Harmony 2]

:modstop:

Do I need to call Kimster in here with her raygun?

Go easy on each other. Emotions are running very high in this case, but we are all entitled to our thoughts and opinions.

 

[Amber29]

Well, where's the proof they were there in the room at the time of the murder? I can't find it. I need some evidence to say "yes, they were in that room that night."

There is ample evidence of RG in that apt, which is a place he did not live and was not invited to. There is ample evidence of RG in MK's room, and on/in MK's body. Amanda lived in that apt.

The ample evidence of RG outside of Meredith's room consists of poo in the large bathroom and a trail of bloody shoeprints leading from Meredith's room to out of the cottage. Maybe that's why some want the crimescene limited to only Meredith's room.

 

[otto]

Arguing one case with another completely unrelated case is a common but invalid technique. And, there is evidence of JY at the murder scene of his wife, physical and other photographic from that same night. But that has nothing to do with the Kercher case.

The definition of a crime scene is not fluid, and should not change depending on the name of the victim. If it is reasonable to collect evidence in and arround the body, outside of the room where the body was discovered (eg: footprints leading from the bedroom down the hallway or to the bathroom), in a secondary location (eg: hotel, restaurant, gas station, apartment), and in a vehicle, then this is not only true of one murder investigation, it is true of all murder investigations.

It makes no sense to say that when someone is murdered, police are incompetent if they do not restrict their investigation to 2 feet on either side of the deceased, yet that is what Knox would like people to do. Why should Italian police be handicapped when investigating a murder, yet police from all other countries are allowed to collect evidence from where ever the investigation leads?

 

[Madeleine74]

How do you "know" RG stole from her? The purse on the bed was an empty purse, it was not the purse Meredith was carrying the night she was killed and it was collected on dec 18th after sitting there for 46days.

Notice I use the word "infer." When Guede was found by police (and this was after his DNA was found to be in MK's room) a laptop and cell phone that had recently been stolen from a Perugian law office was in that backpack. Further, Guede's DNA, along with Meredith&#8217;s blood, was found on Meredith&#8217;s purse. What was Guede doing touching MK's purse? I can infer that someone who has been caught with stolen goods, is known to be a thief, and whose DNA is on a victim's purse, may have stolen from his victim. If money was missing from MK that night there's a logical inference that can be made. I could assume that aliens came down and took something from MK. But that would not be a logical inference.

 

[JaneyBGood]

Being on drugs is motive to me...Not much sense is made of actions at that point in my opinion.

But Amanda and Rafaelle were not on hard drugs...they only smoked pot!!!! Firsthand experience-----smoking a joint DOES NOT make a killer..smoking a joint mellows one, not enrages ...smoking a joint does explain why Knox and Sollecito were so vulnerable to harsh interrogation tactics and intimidation from Italian Police

 

[iluvmua]

You're absolutely right! So what else could be at a scene...

- fingerprints (any found inside the BR?)
- footprints (any found inside the BR?)
- hairs (any found inside the BR?)
- fibers (any found inside the BR?)

You have victim and one defendant living in the same apartment, sharing the same bathroom. One should expect there to be physical evidence of both in the apartment. The bedroom is where MK was killed.

Amanda's DNA was in the bathroom and there was a bloody footprint on the bathmat.

It either belonged to her or Sollecito.