Amanda Knox found guilty for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy #16

[dog.gone.cute]

If she was afraid of being alone (as she said, because of the murder) she could easily have gone to a cafe or public place and waited while RS was at the police station.

:seeya: Good point ... and adding my :twocents: . . . fwiw

But WHO else could Knox have gone to stay with or hang out with during that time ?

First, there was her boss, Mr. Lumumba -- now this would be BEFORE Raf and Knox went to the police station that night ... and BEFORE she accused Mr. Lumumba.

Second, there were 2 other roommates that lived at the cottage ...

So WHY didn't Knox ask one of the other roommates if she could stay with them until LE finished with Raf ?

IMO, the answers are obvious ...

:moo:

 

[Linda7NJ]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/04/case-against-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito
Assertions such as those made by Andrew Gumbel (himself a co-author of Sollecito's autobiography) that Knox and Sollecito have been reconvicted "without a shred of evidence to substantiate the verdict" are untrue and undermine the gravity of the case, as does a one-sided interview with Ms Knox during which the evidence against her is barely addressed.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

This much appears undisputed: that Knox – roughly an hour into her questioning – admitted being in the house when Meredith died, and accused her Congolese boss at the bar where she worked, Patrick Lumumba, of killing Meredith. She alleged he was alone with Meredith as she was sitting in the kitchen and heard a single scream.

Much later that evening, she produced a long, garbled note that appeared to be expanding her options, albeit contradictory ones. She said she was “confused” but that she stood by “events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik [sic]” although they now seemed “more unreal to me than what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele’s house”. She said that “everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith’s death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.” The latter part of that sentence – “the best truth that I have been able to think” – bears consideration.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-a-crime-that-defies-all-our-assumptions.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LinasK]

This much appears undisputed: that Knox – roughly an hour into her questioning – admitted being in the house when Meredith died, and accused her Congolese boss at the bar where she worked, Patrick Lumumba, of killing Meredith. She alleged he was alone with Meredith as she was sitting in the kitchen and heard a single scream.

Much later that evening, she produced a long, garbled note that appeared to be expanding her options, albeit contradictory ones. She said she was “confused” but that she stood by “events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik [sic]” although they now seemed “more unreal to me than what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele’s house”. She said that “everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith’s death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.” The latter part of that sentence – “the best truth that I have been able to think” – bears consideration.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-a-crime-that-defies-all-our-assumptions.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Okay, so obviously she was not spending a quiet evening at Rafe's apartment, which calls his alibi into question too.

 

[Linda7NJ]

New movie...link includes clip
http://www.bustle.com/articles/1457...-a-different-spin-in-face-of-an-angel-trailer



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[seattlechiquita]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/04/case-against-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito

Also from link, and bbm:

3) At the same time as she was originally found guilty of murder, Amanda Knox was also found guilty of slander and subsequently sentenced to four years' imprisonment for having accused an innocent man of the crime. Although acquitted of murder on appeal, the slander charge was upheld. At the time of the acquittal, Ms Knox had spent four years in jail, ie she effectively served the slander sentence while on remand. Therefore, she has not in fact served any time in prison for a crime she did not commit (although the same could not be said for Mr Sollecito if the final outcome of the legal process were to find him not guilty).

 

[bexlex]

This much appears undisputed: that Knox – roughly an hour into her questioning – admitted being in the house when Meredith died, and accused her Congolese boss at the bar where she worked, Patrick Lumumba, of killing Meredith. She alleged he was alone with Meredith as she was sitting in the kitchen and heard a single scream.

Much later that evening, she produced a long, garbled note that appeared to be expanding her options, albeit contradictory ones. She said she was “confused” but that she stood by “events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik [sic]” although they now seemed “more unreal to me than what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele’s house”. She said that “everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith’s death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.” The latter part of that sentence – “the best truth that I have been able to think” – bears consideration.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-a-crime-that-defies-all-our-assumptions.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm very new to this case, so please excuse my ignorance..... Is the bolded above a direct quote from her confession? Last night I saw photos of the apartment for the first time. That place was TINY. You could practically eat off the table while sitting on that couch in the kitchen....

 

[Myvice]

ok, i see your point (if it was truly sealed), but imo, it's an absolute certainty that contamination occurred anyway b/c meredith's belongings were thrown all about in her room (there are photos of her things in random messy piles) and into the hallway as the scene was investigated. as well, wasn't there at least one other break in at the cottage that december? one cannot claim a "sealed crime scene" if this happened... ?

I can't find the link right now but I'm pretty sure the cottage was broken into over a year later. It was after all the evidence was collected.

 

[Myvice]

If she was afraid of being alone (as she said, because of the murder) she could easily have gone to a cafe or public place and waited while RS was at the police station.

If she was afraid to be alone and sleep deprived I would think a poice station would be a great place to catch a few winks instead of doing gymnastics.

After all, what could be safer than a police station...unless you're guilty.

 

[SMK]

This was brought to general attention elsewhere - (am really grateful because I for one had no idea that this was being spoken about so early) -

the day after the verdict during a State Department Press briefing, someone asked questions about Knox's possible extradition.

It is interesting that the official responds to these questions in much the same way as former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton did several years ago: Leave it to the Italian legal process:

This is the part that is really telling:

MS. HARF: Well, the case is still – it’s my understanding – still working its way through the Italian legal system. So we don’t want to get ahead of that process. For any comments on the ongoing legal matter, I’d probably refer you to her attorneys or her herself.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/01/221118.htm#AMANDAKNOX

 

[Myvice]

I know for sure he was one of her male attorneys that claims he instructed her to go.



..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I saw this too. It was on CNN right after the verdict was announced. I can't remember who it was but he spoke English with no accent.

 

[Myvice]

This was brought to general attention elsewhere - (am really grateful because I for one had no idea that this was being spoken about so early) -

the day after the verdict during a State Department Press briefing, someone asked questions about Knox's possible extradition.

It is interesting that the official responds to these questions in much the same way as former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton did several years ago: Leave it to the Italian legal process:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/01/221118.htm#AMANDAKNOX

Wow, that was persistent! I wish they would ask questions in that manner concerning some of the issues in our country that involve all of the citizenry, LOL.

 

[SMK]

Wow, that was persistent! I wish they would ask questions in that manner concerning some of the issues in our country that involve all of the citizenry, LOL.

Ha, good point! But what struck me the most, is how clearly the official kept referring back to the Italian process. In other words, they trust it. (Clinton had said the same at the first conviction under Massei).

 

[Myvice]

Ha, good point! But what struck me the most, is how clearly the official kept referring back to the Italian process. In other words, they trust it. (Clinton had said the same at the first conviction under Massei).

Yes, and she stated clearly that we have an extradition treaty with Italy.

 

[Amber29]

ok, i see your point (if it was truly sealed), but imo, it's an absolute certainty that contamination occurred anyway b/c meredith's belongings were thrown all about in her room (there are photos of her things in random messy piles) and into the hallway as the scene was investigated. as well, wasn't there at least one other break in at the cottage that december? one cannot claim a "sealed crime scene" if this happened... ?

The 2 break ins were in February 2009 and march 2009. I believe, I used to have the links to the stories but I don't anymore. I'm sorry.

 

[Harmony 2]

I saw this too. It was on CNN right after the verdict was announced. I can't remember who it was but he spoke English with no accent.

I did not hear it but are you referring to Ted Simon?

link

 

[Myvice]

I did not hear it but are you referring to Ted Simon?

link

Thanks for trying but I'm really unsure. I just remember the guy saying that it wasn't good to have an empty chair at the defense table or something like that.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I did not hear it but are you referring to Ted Simon?

link

I'm not sure either. I never bothered to look up. I just heard him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

Personally, I think that they thought everyone would believe their burglar story. I mean, just looking at it from an layperson's perspective, not knowing the evidence in the case, it is much easier to believe that a burglar would have come in and raped and murdered Meredith, then to think that oh, 3 people played a prank on Meredith and something happened, and then 2 people came back and cleaned up the cottage and cleaned doors and moved the body around to stage it and staged the window to make it look like a burglary, etc., etc.. Just like from reading this thread, one can see similar things being said from some of those supporting her innocence, even knowing the evidence. So of course a layperson is not going to automatically think the second thing, they are going to think the most obvious thing - the first.

The problem is, they were thinking of it like how a layperson would view it. They didn't count on how investigators would see it. Investigators who are familiar with these things. They thought someone like you or me would look at it from a very cursory view and think, well, duh, a burglar came in.

I posted an article on last thread where the author said that most of the times during staging, perps make mistakes because they don't think of things in terms of the way detectives and investigators will see it. They think of things in terms of how a regular person (not in crime investigations) would see it. That's where they make the mistakes.

So I do think that they were thinking that investigators would buy the story, especially given they had staged everything to make it look that way.

As far as Rudy goes, I think that they thought that perhaps the investigators would not be able to match anything to Rudy. I mean, how would investigators have known Rudy was even there? Maybe they thought that since Rudy would not be on the radar for this murder, his DNA would not be taken, and thus they would not be able to match it. I think that they just wanted desperately for investigators to believe in the IDEA of the "burglar."

I think their back-up plan in the case if Rudy was ever matched and found, would be to deny deny deny. That who would believe some Black man over them? But I think this was only their back-up plan in case Rudy was matched and caught, which I don't think they actually thought that they would be able to match the DNA with Rudy.

The idea of the burglar is what they wanted to be believed.

Guede's fingerprints were taken after the Milan burglary. The palm print on the pillow case was matched to him. After the arrest, they obtained his DNA and matched his DNA to evidence at the crime scene.

I suspect that Knox/Sollecito had no idea that Guede had been detained in Milan and didn't know that police had any way of matching him to the crime scene. It's possible that, between the three of them, they agreed that Guede would run and Knox/Sollecito would carry on as though nothing happened. Knox/Sollecito couldn't really leave, without drawing a lot of attention, given their commitments.

If Guede had offered an opinion about staging a break in, he would have pointed out that burglars choose the easy route, not the most complicated route. I don't think he had any input into that.

You make a good point about staged break ins. A real thief is looking for something to steal. Filomina had jewelry in her drawer but the drawer was not touched. The computer was on the desk and it was not stolen, instead it was thrown onto the floor. The room had the appearance of being ransacked (clothing thrown on the floor), but not the appearance of a thief searching for valuables.

 

[otto]

i said what?

a tv station in italy investigating the evidence is biased? in what way? or am i misunderstanding?

TG5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV stations are interested in ratings, not truth.