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

[TorisMom003]

The information is in the court transcripts of Knox's testimony. She states in court in response to the prosecutor that she alone introduced Patrick's name to the discussion. I took the time to find the quotes and link them weeks ago, but there was apparently some doubt as to whether that could be posted here, so that information was deleted. As I said, I will not take the time to quote and link it again, but anyone that is interested can look at Knox's testimony and find the information.

I am in the process of reading Amanda's testimony and so far I have seen her say in three separate instances that the police are the ones that introduced Patrick's name first. Any idea as to where in the testimony Amanda is supposed to say that she brought up Patrick's name and not the other way around?

 

[aa9511]

OK. Maybe Knox turned her phone off in case her boss changed his mind and decided to call her into work (one of her own stories). And S. turned his off ....say, in sympathy.

Throw in, let's say that all the DNA evidence was contaminated and unreliable. Add in, Knox was a frightened innocent babe who did cartwheels at the police station out of nervousness, who didn't understand what was going on, who felt pressured to implicate a completely innocent man and who forgot over the next 2 weeks to retract the accusation.

Also, allow reasonable doubt about time of death.

What's left, the indisputable facts, are enough to find her guilty. The break in was staged. Outside shutters were closed, had to be opened before rock was thrown, involving multiple climbs up and down, not a blade of grass disturbed under the window, and not a single shard of glass to be found outside. Nothing stolen, or collected to be taken afterwards.

Why stage a break in? More important, who benefitted from staging a break in? Who could have done the staging?

The defense didn't dispute the fact of a bloody footprint found on a bathmat in the smaller bathroom. A naked footprint. Guede's footprints wled straight from Meredith's room to the door out. His SHOE prints. He had blood on his shoes. Someone else had to have had blood on their bare feet to have left the print. Who could that be if nobody else entered the house between the time of the murder and the next day?

:star:

 

[aa9511]

The evidence of TOD is not based on the contents of Meredith's stomach, it's based on the fact that none of the meal she ate at 6:30 had yet passed from her stomach into the duodenum. In a normal person, passage starts in under 3 hours.

Combine this with other evidence, such as the fact that Meredith was still wearing her jacket and it becomes clear she that she was attacked just after arriving home. We know that Meredith left her friend Robin at about 8:55 pm, from there she walked home alone. She attempted to call her mother at 8:56 pm, but the call failed to connect to the a cell tower. The car park video camera captured her image a couple minutes after 9 pm. She would have entered the cottage about 9:05 pm.

If with your estimation of TOD, RS and Amanda cannot be excluded.

 

[aa9511]

I got the info from her trial testimony video on youtube (Amanda Knox Trial Testimony, Part 1 English - YouTube). She says that she replied to Lumumbas message "see you later" (in italian)- and that is how police got suspicious about Lumumba, as this means something else in Italian.

As I said before, I just started with this case a couple of days ago and as I have 2 small kids I really cant read all the pages on here.
So much in this case was later rated as not admissable, I might have missed something and thus be wrong of course.

:seeya:

It is extremely natural that they would ask her about any calls she made or any texts she received in the hours of Meredith's death!!

That doesn't mean that they slapped her around and tortured her into accusing him of murder!!

JMO

 

[Myvice]

I am in the process of reading Amanda's testimony and so far I have seen her say in three separate instances that the police are the ones that introduced Patrick's name first. Any idea as to where in the testimony Amanda is supposed to say that she brought up Patrick's name and not the other way around?

If the police introduced PL's name due to the phone call does that mean they told her to accuse him? I don't get it.

Does it mean she just accused the first person that came to mind?

 

[aa9511]

Quick question. When someone went to the cottage, say from the area that RS lived, would the CCV camera record them? (I believe that CCV is the correct "term") There is footage of Meredith returning to the cottage, footage of RG going to the cottage at least once (I believe it recorded him twice though that night) that night. So then where is the footage of AK and RS going to the cottage? What about them leaving the cottage?

But on the same token, where is the video of RG leaving the cottage? He is not still at the cottage, even though there is no video of him leaving the cottage.

 

[aa9511]

:seeya:

BBM: I agree ...

I lean more towards this than a "prank" because what a "coincidence" that the other two flatmates, Laura and Filomina, were both away for the night ... AND ... the 4 college males that lived downstairs in the cottage were away for the night as well because of the Holiday ...

Wow ... just a "coincidence" ...

:twocents:

But one thing I will say is that it might have been easier that way - b/c otherwise they would have had to factor in all other roomates when planning it. I think that would have been too complicated. For example, one of the other girls might have been home. So then how would they lie in wait for Meredith to get home to scare her? They would have to include the other roommate(s) in the plan.

I think it was more of something spontaneous to the circumstances of that time. It was Halloween and All Saint's Day, it was holiday, they wanted something fun to do, Meredith was home alone - perfect time to scare her....then, on that night, Amanda didn't have to go to work, Jovana's trip to airport got cancelled, they were free for the night and looking for fun. Also if the prank was planned for Halloween, that would make perfect sense because of the spooooky nature of Halloween.

 

[Myvice]

Does anyone have a link to the fingerprint chart? I went through the last thread and can't find it...crap, poo-poo..and all that.

TIA

 

[ShadyLady]

Another BIG clue for me.....a thief does not break a window like that unless he KNOWS no one is home (noise). So I don't think it happened as the Knox PR Machine says it did.

For all we know, Knox left the door open and sent Rudy over to surprise Meredith when she got home.

 

[LinasK]

Unfortunately we only have the police and courts opinion that the break in was staged. I have yet to see any proof that the window sill was dusted for prints. Perhaps if it had been then the prints would have turned the investigators to the person that actually broke the window and entered the cottage that way. Instead of following the evidence, a decision was made that it was staged. When the investigators relied on that decision instead of following through with dusting for prints to see who the culprit was, they were then stuck with a theory of a "staged break in" instead of actually proving one way or the other for a fact about a "staged break in".

MOO

The fact that glass fell outward, rather than inward is evidence of staging. And there were closed shutters on the outsides of the windows and no grass was disturbed, nor were there any footprints on the lawn outside.

 

[Amber29]

Unfortunately we only have the police and courts opinion that the break in was staged. I have yet to see any proof that the window sill was dusted for prints. Perhaps if it had been then the prints would have turned the investigators to the person that actually broke the window and entered the cottage that way. Instead of following the evidence, a decision was made that it was staged. When the investigators relied on that decision instead of following through with dusting for prints to see who the culprit was, they were then stuck with a theory of a "staged break in" instead of actually proving one way or the other for a fact about a "staged break in".

MOO

Why would all the windows be fingerprinted except Filomenas? Her wardrobe had her prints on it and prints were found on all the other girls windows.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Fingerprint_Chart.jpg

 

[Amber29]

How long before midnight were the phones there?

I have no idea as there was no tower ping, what is fact is that they weren't there at 10:13pm and were there just after midnight.

 

[italianWSfan]

It is extremely natural that they would ask her about any calls she made or any texts she received in the hours of Meredith's death!!

That doesn't mean that they slapped her around and tortured her into accusing him of murder!!

JMO

Okay it seems I created quite a confusion, which was not my intention.
I will give it one more try.

What I tried to say is, it seems possible for me that the police suggested Lumumba COULD HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT.

Lumumba wrote in a text message that there is no need for Knox to do her shift. She responded "Okay, ci vediamo piu tardi." (Okay, see you later.) "See you later" is an english phrase which is used very often - you would say to someone "see you later" even if you knew that you are not going to meet this person again soon.
But, translated to the Italian language, "ci vediamo piu tardi" means something different, even though the translation is correct. If you say that sentence to someone, you are going to have a definite appointment with that person, in the next couple of hours.
If you do not have an appointment, you will need to use another term. In english, you can use it with or without appointment.

I made this point because I experienced this myself when spending two years abroad in the UK. People there were telling me all the time that they would "see me later" and I found it strange, because I did not have an appointment with them. I got used to it eventually.

Knox probably did not about this, and she just used this term because she translated it in her mind directly from English to Italian.
Now we have the scenario of the police first questioning Knox. She gave her cellphone willingly to them and they eventually found her message to Lumumba saying "Ci vediamo piu tardi".
Hence they assumed Knox had an apointment that evening with this man.
They asked her if she met someone and she said she did not. That is when police got suspicious (rightfully) because of this message in which she wrote it down. Then they call her a liar and they put her under pressure (using words - I DO NOT believe they hit her) to tell them the truth. They probably went on asking "who is this man? how do you know him? why are you saying you didnt meet him, when you wrote that message to him? You must be lying, are you trying to cover him up? why? what did he do? did he kill meredith?" etc. etc.
Up to this point the above seems problable to me.
Then, Knox under pressure, maybe thought "hey, lets make up a story. They want to hear I met Lumumba, so I might just tell them I really did and fabricate a huge story about him killing Meredith. They will hopefully buy the story and then they will let me go and put him to prison."

Later, when Lumumba was set free because of several alibis, she said she was "confused" as police "suggested" to her Lumumba did it. Which, in fact, COULD be seen as the truth, because they did. What Knox did not say, of course, is that she fabricated the whole story to clear her name.

That is why I was saying I can see where that statement comes from.
I dont know if it is the truth, but is seems probable to me.
I believe in her guilt anyway.
Sorry for any grammar mistakes :blushing:

 

[Amber29]

We have evidence that Amanda had used the small bathroom. Considering that it is the bathroom she shared with the victim, that is as expected.

Swab the surfaces in your bathroom and you will find your DNA along with DNA from anyone who routinely uses that bathroom.

Rudy didn't scrub himself in that bathroom, he just rinsed the blood off his pants. Rudy even admits to using the small bathroom to cleanup after Meredith died. He probably left some DNA on the towels that he left in Meredith's room, but once again the ace Perugia team screwed up. They stored the damp towels in plastic bags. When they retrieved them to do DNA tests, they were covered with mold.

Where does RG admit to cleaning up in the bathroom? Please provide the source.

Clearly as a lone wolf he would've done more than clean off his pants, as there was blood on the sink,bidet, and toilet. All that and he was able to manage to avoid getting any blood on the tile.

I seem to remember evidence in the GZ trial being stored incorrectly in the same manner and being ruined.

 

[Myvice]

Why would all the windows be fingerprinted except Filomenas? Her wardrobe had her prints on it and prints were found on all the other girls windows.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Fingerprint_Chart.jpg

Thanks Amber29 you read my mind.

 

[Amber29]

Quick question. When someone went to the cottage, say from the area that RS lived, would the CCV camera record them? (I believe that CCV is the correct "term") There is footage of Meredith returning to the cottage, footage of RG going to the cottage at least once (I believe it recorded him twice though that night) that night. So then where is the footage of AK and RS going to the cottage? What about them leaving the cottage?

The CCV from the car park does not cover every place you can cross the street to get to the cottage. The footage that is claimed to be RG is not proven to be him. It's the back of a man and I thought it was at 7:40ish or something like that.

 

[Amber29]

Thanks Amber29 you read my mind.

I saw your post after my reply and I thought, I hope she sees that.

 

[Footwarrior]

Another BIG clue for me.....a thief does not break a window like that unless he KNOWS no one is home (noise). So I don't think it happened as the Knox PR Machine says it did.

For all we know, Knox left the door open and sent Rudy over to surprise Meredith when she got home.

Most burglars prefer unoccupied homes. The cottage would have been dark, but tossing a big rock through the window is one way to be sure. Toss the rock and hide in the shadows. If anyone is home the noise will wake them up and you just sneak away to look for another target.

If the lights don't come on, you can proceed with the burglary.

 

[aa9511]

Okay it seems I created quite a confusion, which was not my intention.
I will give it one more try.

What I tried to say is, it seems possible for me that the police suggested Lumumba COULD HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT.

Lumumba wrote in a text message that there is no need for Knox to do her shift. She responded "Okay, ci vediamo piu tardi." (Okay, see you later.) "See you later" is an english phrase which is used very often - you would say to someone "see you later" even if you knew that you are not going to meet this person again soon.
But, translated to the Italian language, "ci vediamo piu tardi" means something different, even though the translation is correct. If you say that sentence to someone, you are going to have a definite appointment with that person, in the next couple of hours.
If you do not have an appointment, you will need to use another term. In english, you can use it with or without appointment.

I made this point because I experienced this myself when spending two years abroad in the UK. People there were telling me all the time that they would "see me later" and I found it strange, because I did not have an appointment with them. I got used to it eventually.

Knox probably did not about this, and she just used this term because she translated it in her mind directly from English to Italian.
Now we have the scenario of the police first questioning Knox. She gave her cellphone willingly to them and they eventually found her message to Lumumba saying "Ci vediamo piu tardi".
Hence they assumed Knox had an apointment that evening with this man.
They asked her if she met someone and she said she did not. That is when police got suspicious (rightfully) because of this message in which she wrote it down. Then they call her a liar and they put her under pressure (using words - I DO NOT believe they hit her) to tell them the truth. They probably went on asking "who is this man? how do you know him? why are you saying you didnt meet him, when you wrote that message to him? You must be lying, are you trying to cover him up? why? what did he do? did he kill meredith?" etc. etc.
Up to this point the above seems problable to me.
Then, Knox under pressure, maybe thought "hey, lets make up a story. They want to hear I met Lumumba, so I might just tell them I really did and fabricate a huge story about him killing Meredith. They will hopefully buy the story and then they will let me go and put him to prison."

Later, when Lumumba was set free because of several alibis, she said she was "confused" as police "suggested" to her Lumumba did it. Which, in fact, COULD be seen as the truth, because they did. What Knox did not say, of course, is that she fabricated the whole story to clear her name.

That is why I was saying I can see where that statement comes from.
I dont know if it is the truth, but is seems probable to me.
I believe in her guilt anyway.
Sorry for any grammar mistakes :blushing:

Yes, I understand. Sorry, my post was more just venting my thoughts about this whole Patrick discussion, and your post was kind of my jumping-off post to vent those thoughts. Sorry, I did understand what you meant and I do understand it now.

I think that police would have definately asked her about that text and asked her about any phone calls she made around the time of the murder. I feel that is only natural in a murder investigation.

I do think that they had to clarify who this person is and what that text is about. Again, I feel that this is only natural for the murder investigation.

So yes, I can see that they would have asked that who is this person Patrick, and what is this text message about? They were trying to piece together what Amanda did that night, in sequence, because Amanda could not "remember" and would not tell them. It is very obvious that when someone says things like, "maybe we did this, maybe we did that," I can't remember exactly, I don't know, maybe this maybe that....that they are lying that they can't remember! So since she was not telling them concrete things about what she did that night with RS, she was only offerng vague-ities, they had to try to understand exactly what her claim was of what she was doing that night.

In order to tell anything, they had to first figure out what Amanda herself was claiming that she was doing that night.

Since Amanda was being vague and not offering in any concrete way and kind of logical sequence of things she did that night, they had to try to understand what her claim was of what she was doing that night, in a sequential manner.

So I don't think that because there might have been confusion over the "see you later," that the police all of a sudden started pressuring her because she was lying.

I think her lying had started way before that. She was not giving them any sort of concrete sequence of what she did that night. I think it was the entire portion of her interrogation that was the problem for her. Because she did not answer questions truthfully, and thus she created a mess for herself. Because she could not even describe any sort of activities she was doing that night in any concrete way, only in abstracts and vague way. Maybe this, maybe that, I don't know??

So what Amanda is doing is ignoring alllllllllllll of that, ignoring what she herself did to confuse the situation and mess up the situation, and she is conveniently focusing on this one line "see you later," in order to absolve herself of any responsibility for her false accusation. You see, she is saying what will benefit her. It is all about her and taking responsibility away from herself.

JMO.

 

[Myvice]

<modsnip>


Thanks for that otto. Looks pretty clear who was leading who in the conversation.

And no mention of headslaps. Sounds like the cops were just doing their jobs to me.

I guess that's pretty close to a transcript of the interview that night that everyone has wanted. it can't get much better than her own words.