Amanda Knox New Motivation Report RE: Meredith Kercher Murder #1 *new trial ordered*

[Sonata]

The thing that really bothers me about this case is how irrational people seem to get over it.

Personally, I agree that some of Amanda's behavior was odd or inappropriate. However, there are so many reasons that someone might behave in an odd way - it just does not mean guilt.

 

[otto]

The thing that really bothers me about this case is how irrational people seem to get over it.

Personally, I agree that some of Amanda's behavior was odd or inappropriate. However, there are so many reasons that someone might behave in an odd way - it just does not mean guilt.

I don't think that Knox and Sollecito were convicted based on their lying or behavior alone. It was the combination of the dishonesty and behavior with the more important forensic evidence.

Meredith's DNA was on the blade of the knife. The defense team alleges that this was a result of contamination, the prosecution disagrees. Raffaele's DNA was on the bra clasp. The defense team alleges again that this was a result of contamination. Essentially, the defense team has argued that all the incriminating DNA was a result of contamination, or incompetency, when it pertained to Knox and Sollecito. The problem with that argument, in part, is that the same team collected evidence in the same manner from the same crime scene at the same time for all three convicted persons. If the evidence implicated Rudy, everything was done correctly. If the evidence implicated Knox or Sollecito, then the defense position is that everything was done incorrectly. That just doesn't add up.

 

[Malkmus]

I don't think that Knox and Sollecito were convicted based on their lying or behavior alone. It was the combination of the dishonesty and behavior with the more important forensic evidence.

Meredith's DNA was on the blade of the knife. The defense team alleges that this was a result of contamination, the prosecution disagrees. Raffaele's DNA was on the bra clasp. The defense team alleges again that this was a result of contamination. Essentially, the defense team has argued that all the incriminating DNA was a result of contamination, or incompetency, when it pertained to Knox and Sollecito. The problem with that argument, in part, is that the same team collected evidence in the same manner from the same crime scene at the same time for all three convicted persons. If the evidence implicated Rudy, everything was done correctly. If the evidence implicated Knox or Sollecito, then the defense position is that everything was done incorrectly. That just doesn't add up.

You keep saying the "defense" made those arguments, when in fact it was mostly the independent experts who came in to mediate the indecision over the results of the forensic team.

 

[otto]

You keep saying the "defense" made those arguments, when in fact it was mostly the independent experts who came in to mediate the indecision over the results of the forensic team.

I do mean that this is what the defense argued all along. How many times have we read that the bloody footprints were not blood, but fruit juice ... meaning someone put fruit juice on the bottom of their feet and then walked from the bathroom to Knox's bedroom. What strange thing to do. They insisted that there was something wrong with the forensics. In any case, the appeal has been annulled (along with the independent opinions) and everything will be re-evaluated.

 

[Malkmus]

I do mean that this is what the defense argued all along. How many times have we read that the bloody footprints were not blood, but fruit juice ... meaning someone put fruit juice on the bottom of their feet and then walked from the bathroom to Knox's bedroom. What strange thing to do. They insisted that there was something wrong with the forensics. In any case, the appeal has been annulled (along with the independent opinions) and everything will be re-evaluated.

You mentioned those are the reasons why they were convicted, and said it was their dishonesty towards that evidence. You are correct in that is why they were convicted, but that same evidence is also why they were acquitted in the appeal.

Don't know why you keep bringing up the juice argument. The defense expert argued it was bleach residue from the shower.

 

[otto]

You mentioned those are the reasons why they were convicted, and said it was their dishonesty towards that evidence. You are correct in that is why they were convicted, but that same evidence is also why they were acquitted in the appeal.

Don't know why you keep bringing up the juice argument. The defense expert argued it was bleach residue from the shower.

I responded to a comment suggesting that Sollecito and Knox were convicted on the basis of behavior, pointing out that the forensic evidence was supported by behavioral evidence.

 

[Sonata]

I don't think that Knox and Sollecito were convicted based on their lying or behavior alone. It was the combination of the dishonesty and behavior with the more important forensic evidence.

Meredith's DNA was on the blade of the knife. The defense team alleges that this was a result of contamination, the prosecution disagrees. Raffaele's DNA was on the bra clasp. The defense team alleges again that this was a result of contamination. Essentially, the defense team has argued that all the incriminating DNA was a result of contamination, or incompetency, when it pertained to Knox and Sollecito. The problem with that argument, in part, is that the same team collected evidence in the same manner from the same crime scene at the same time for all three convicted persons. If the evidence implicated Rudy, everything was done correctly. If the evidence implicated Knox or Sollecito, then the defense position is that everything was done incorrectly. That just doesn't add up.

I actually was not talking about the trial. I was talking about the press and people like us who want to discuss the case but are not involved.

I don't think it's sufficient for anyone to argue based on the final decisions of the court since we've now had 2 completely different decisions.

 

[Sonata]

I responded to a comment suggesting that Sollecito and Knox were convicted on the basis of behavior, pointing out that the forensic evidence was supported by behavioral evidence.

Please don't misrepresent me. I was not talking about their convictions. I was talking about discussions around the case.

 

[otto]

I actually was not talking about the trial. I was talking about the press and people like us who want to discuss the case but are not involved.

I don't think it's sufficient for anyone to argue based on the final decisions of the court since we've now had 2 completely different decisions.

All of the unusual behavior of the convicted individuals was released as part of the trial evidence, so I don't think that it makes all the much difference whether it is was discussed here, or whether it was one of the reasons for the convictions.

I would disagree that we have two completely different decisions. The trial resulted in convictions for all three accused. Rudy, who opted for the fast track trial option (with a guaranteed 1/3 reduction of sentence), had his sentence confirmed. Knox has had her conviction for falsely accusing an innocent man of murder confirmed. Knox and Sollecito appealed their murder convictions, but that appeal has been annulled - so it's no longer on the books. The only decision that has been made, so far, is that Knox and Sollecito are guilty of murder. The appeal will be re-heard in the Fall.

 

[Sonata]

All of the unusual behavior of the convicted individuals was released as part of the trial evidence, so I don't think that it makes all the much difference whether it is was discussed here, or whether it was one of the reasons for the convictions.

It makes a huge difference to me as that was my intention when I posted that comment, not to talk about those matters in relation to the actual evidence/trial. Personally I think the intention of posters in the forum is extremely important.

I would disagree that we have two completely different decisions. The trial resulted in convictions for all three accused. Rudy, who opted for the fast track trial option (with a guaranteed 1/3 reduction of sentence), had his sentence confirmed. Knox has had her conviction for falsely accusing an innocent man of murder confirmed. Knox and Sollecito appealed their murder convictions, but that appeal has been annulled - so it's no longer on the books. The only decision that has been made, so far, is that Knox and Sollecito are guilty of murder. The appeal will be re-heard in the Fall.

Well, I disagree on that point. We've had the verdict of the original trial and the verdict of the appeal. Both were different. Just because the appeal is now being contested it doesn't erase the history of the case which is that the appeal was originally successful.

 

[otto]

It makes a huge difference to me as that was my intention when I posted that comment, not to talk about those matters in relation to the actual evidence/trial. Personally I think the intention of posters in the forum is extremely important.

Well, I disagree on that point. We've had the verdict of the original trial and the verdict of the appeal. Both were different. Just because the appeal is now being contested it doesn't erase the history of the case which is that the appeal was originally successful.

The appeal was annulled and declared invalid, so the conclusions of that appeal are no long valid.

 

[Sonata]

The appeal was annulled and declared invalid, so the conclusions of that appeal are no long valid.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. But do you understand that I am talking about the history of the case and not the specific legalities?

 

[otto]

Yes, I understand what you are saying. But do you understand that I am talking about the history of the case and not the specific legalities?

I can't think of anything that was discussed here that was not part of the trial evidence.

 

[Malkmus]

(snipped)The only decision that has been made, so far, is that Knox and Sollecito are guilty of murder.

Then it's rather odd that neither one is back in prison. Usually people guilty of murder aren't allowed to walk the streets freely until their next appeal is concluded. I think this is part of what Sonata is talking about.

 

[SMK]

Then it's rather odd that neither one is back in prison. Usually people guilty of murder aren't allowed to walk the streets freely until their next appeal is concluded. I think this is part of what Sonata is talking about.

This is the part I don't understand:

The appeal verdict was overturned, (voiding the acquittals);

and they say (at least at PG sites) that the original convictions now stand provisionally, pending the new appeal trial.

So what is the actual current status of Knox and Sollecito?

 

[SMK]

:furious::furious::furious::furious: No one knows what their status is? I would assume she is not a convicted murderer but rather a defendant whose acquittal has been overturned and is pending a retrial. Otherwise, they would call for her extradition.

 

[Nancee Drue]

Guilty, or innocent....regardless of what the italian courts say, I don't think Amanda can be forced to return to Italy, and be retried.

 

[darcedarce]

I hope this is dropped in the end. Amanda should be allowed to get on with her life.

 

[SMK]

Guilty, or innocent....regardless of what the italian courts say, I don't think Amanda can be forced to return to Italy, and be retried.

She will be retried in absentia.

If the conviction stands, Italy can call for her extradition, and as we have a treaty with Italy presupposing we uphold their due process and courts, it would be odd not to honor it. I guess it would be a legal battle.

If she is acquitted once more, the prosecution will appeal that once more. Really too protracted a process.....

 

[otto]

Then it's rather odd that neither one is back in prison. Usually people guilty of murder aren't allowed to walk the streets freely until their next appeal is concluded. I think this is part of what Sonata is talking about.

BBM

On what is that based? Are there statistics showing which percentage of convicted murders in Italy are not in jail given a conviction, defense appeal, successful prosecution argument for annulment of appeal, and pending re-appeal?

Given the completely different legal systems, US standards cannot be applied to this case.