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

[otto]

It's a DM writer being very liberal with her statements from November 6th. We have all three statements (the two typed up by the police and her hand-written one) and none of them say this. By Novemember 7th she had completely retracted any possibility of Patrick or her being there. Of course no one ever cared to print that one. It's a shame this stuff keeps popping up because it just adds to confusion.

Knox did not retract her statements on Nov 7. She left Patrick to rot in jail until an independent witness came forward to provide him with an alibi. What Knox did was provide more wishy washy nonsense where she stated that she stood behind her claims regarding Patrick. If she stood behind her claims regarding Patrick, then she had personal knowledge of the murder and therefore she was involved in the murder.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Knox did not retract her statements on Nov 7. She left Patrick to rot in jail until an independent witness came forward to provide him with an alibi. What Knox did was provide more wishy washy nonsense where she stated that she stood behind her claims regarding Patrick. If she stood behind her claims regarding Patrick, then she had personal knowledge of the murder and therefore she was involved in the murder.

No, you are confusing the statement of 6 November (I stand by...even though...) and 7 November. The second memoriale (7 November) is a complete retraction. Excerpts are found in Follain (around p. 153, IIRC) and in Dempsey. Patrick was not released even after the witness came forward.

 

[Malkmus]

Yes, Rudy points to an attack between 9-9:30pm. Not the judge. The judge does not say Rudy is lying. He says that Rudy made a possible mistake. And then he concludes that he did make a mistake otherwise a TOD of 10:15pm is impossible. Just look at my previous quotes from the Appeal Court.

As I've said and quoted, the court is rebutting the first court's argument that the death occurred at 11:30. They use Rudy's times and cell phone activity to argue that it happened much earlier than 11:30, no later than 10:13. They don't say Rudy did make a mistake. They say that even if he did make a mistake, the murder couldn't have happened as late as 11:30. The fact that each time they reference the 10:13 time they say either "no later than 10:13" and "around 10:13" means they are narrowing it down to a window, not a specific time.

I'm still confused as to what you find so "dishonest" with this argument by the appeal court. Is it that the murder could not have happened later than 10:13, or that they say according to Rudy he was in the house between 9 and 9:30?

 

[Malkmus]

Knox did not retract her statements on Nov 7. She left Patrick to rot in jail until an independent witness came forward to provide him with an alibi. What Knox did was provide more wishy washy nonsense where she stated that she stood behind her claims regarding Patrick. If she stood behind her claims regarding Patrick, then she had personal knowledge of the murder and therefore she was involved in the murder.

On November 7th she wrote:

"I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. But now I remember I can’t know who was the murderer because I didn’t return back to the house."

So on November 5th/6th you have an interrogation where the translator admits to helping convince Knox she was traumatized and didn't remember going to the cottage, and the next day we have Knox saying she knows she wasn't at the cottage and can't know who the murderer was. Yet, the police went out of their way to find a witness who could say Patrick's bar was indeed closed that night, despite witnesses saying they were there and even once Rudy was caught in Germany, and revealed to a friend that he was there that night but Amanda wasn't, the police still didn't change their theory because they'd already announced to the world "case closed".

 

[otto]

On November 7th she wrote:

"I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. But now I remember I can’t know who was the murderer because I didn’t return back to the house."

So on November 5th/6th you have an interrogation where the translator admits to helping convince Knox she was traumatized and didn't remember going to the cottage, and the next day we have Knox saying she knows she wasn't at the cottage and can't know who the murderer was. Yet, the police went out of their way to find a witness who could say Patrick's bar was indeed closed that night, despite witnesses saying they were there and even once Rudy was caught in Germany, and revealed to a friend that he was there that night but Amanda wasn't, the police still didn't change their theory because they'd already announced to the world "case closed".

We have to congratulate Knox for needing only 6 days to realize that by implicating Patrick, she was placing herself at the murder scene at the time of the murder. So, on the 7th of November, she experienced a moment of lucidity and voila ... she tries to distance herself from implicating Patrick only because ... hey she wasn't there. That's not a retraction, that's a ... whoops.

 

[otto]

And what about that mushroom apple ... are we still trying to argue that this mushroom apple was on it's way to the stomach, or are we recognizing that this apple, that now appeared like a mushroom, was perhaps on the way back to the mouth ... meaning ... it does nothing to assist in determining time of death.

 

[Malkmus]

We have to congratulate Knox for needing only 6 days to realize that by implicating Patrick, she was placing herself at the murder scene at the time of the murder. So, on the 7th of November, she experienced a moment of lucidity and voila ... she tries to distance herself from implicating Patrick only because ... hey she wasn't there. That's not a retraction, that's a ... whoops.

Your math is off quite a bit there. One day from the time she implicated herself and Patrick.

 

[otto]

Your math is off quite a bit there. One day from the time she implicated herself and Patrick.

Thank you. Still ... one day she accuses Patrick, another day she writes a letter stating that she stands behind her false accusations against Patrick, and then we get the big whoops ... where it's abundantly clear that she suddenly realized that she could only implicate Patrick if she was there, so she claims that she wasn't there ... or she doesn't remember ... or she smoked a big reefer ... or she was drinking ... or ... who knows ... it's such a mess of untrue statements that really nothing she says after the first lie holds water.

 

[sherlockh]

As I've said and quoted, the court is rebutting the first court's argument that the death occurred at 11:30. They use Rudy's times and cell phone activity to argue that it happened much earlier than 11:30, no later than 10:13. They don't say Rudy did make a mistake. They say that even if he did make a mistake, the murder couldn't have happened as late as 11:30. The fact that each time they reference the 10:13 time they say either "no later than 10:13" and "around 10:13" means they are narrowing it down to a window, not a specific time.

I'm still confused as to what you find so "dishonest" with this argument by the appeal court. Is it that the murder could not have happened later than 10:13, or that they say according to Rudy he was in the house between 9 and 9:30?

Are you now denying that the Appeal Court pinpointed the TOD at 10:15pm?

pinpointed by this Court [as having occurred] at around 10:15 PM

You are completely mixing up what the Appeal Court actually said. They said that the aggression could not have started later than 10:13pm. Not death. Death followed shortly after the aggression started so no way he is including Rudy's 9:30pm. That is not shortly before 10:15pm. He included an error of timing made by Rudy of at least half an hour. I already explained this. This way Rudy supports the TOD timing of 10:15pm (according to the Appeal Court).

The start of the attack was between 10pm and no later than 10:13pm, death was shortly after, pinpointed at around 10:15pm. Again the Appeal Court is not honest about what Rudy actually said, and they don't explain anywhere why they think the attack could have been as short as 2 minutes.

 

[Sonata]

Thank you. Still ... one day she accuses Patrick, another day she writes a letter stating that she stands behind her false accusations against Patrick, and then we get the big whoops ...

When did she write a letter standing by the claims?

I thought she wrote a letter stating the opposite?

 

[Footwarrior]

When did she write a letter standing by the claims?

I thought she wrote a letter stating the opposite?

It's the same letter where she says none of it seems real. The letter written in jail after an all night interrogation session, long before she was allowed to have a lawyer. Otto is simply repeating a tabloid talking point by quoting Amanda out of context.

 

[Sonata]

Don't know if I missed this on the board but Amanda's book cover has been released:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2012/11/30/amanda-knoxs-book-no-smiles-here/

 

[otto]

It's the same letter where she says none of it seems real. The letter written in jail after an all night interrogation session, long before she was allowed to have a lawyer. Otto is simply repeating a tabloid talking point by quoting Amanda out of context.

I've never considered the Telegraph a tabloid, but each to their own. Out of curiosity, if the Telegraph is a tabloid, does that mean that the National Enquirer is news?

"In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming.

...

And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.

...

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.

...

In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night."

November 6
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

I sure hope that Knox has studied English since this writing this ... otherwise no one will have the patience to read her book.

 

[otto]

Don't know if I missed this on the board but Amanda's book cover has been released:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2012/11/30/amanda-knoxs-book-no-smiles-here/

Who edited it?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

...

And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.

...

(bolding mine, not yours)
The second half of the sentence is the key IMO. In the first half she may be saying that she did not lie (intentionally speak falsely); the second half means that she now finds what she said on the night of the 5th implausible.

 

[otto]

(bolding mine, not yours)
The second half of the sentence is the key IMO. In the first half she may be saying that she did not lie (intentionally speak falsely); the second half means that she now finds what she said on the night of the 5th implausible.

She stands behind her statements regarding Patrick. If she didn't mean this, she shouldn't have written in. It's that simple.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

She stands behind her statements regarding Patrick. If she didn't mean this, she shouldn't have written in. It's that simple.

I find that the position of the pro-guilt community has changed over time. It used to be that pro-guilt commenters said that Amanda never retracted her statement. When they were shown to be wrong, they say that she should not have made the statement in the first place. Then why bring up the "She let Patrick rot..." argument in the first place?

 

[otto]

I find that the position of the pro-guilt community has changed over time. It used to be that pro-guilt commenters said that Amanda never retracted her statement. When they were shown to be wrong, they say that she should not have made the statement in the first place. Then why bring up the "She let Patrick rot..." argument in the first place?

I'm not pro-anything. I would like to see justice for Meredith Kercher. She was brutally attacked, receiving more than 40 injuries. The foot print on the bath mat does not match Rudy and other evidence points to additional people participating in the murder. We have the window that appeared to be broken after the room was ransacked. We have a statement from one of the suspects where she falsely accuses an innocent man of murder and then provides an additional voluntary statement verifying that she "stands behind" her accusations. I do not agree that the statement was retracted. In fact, it's quite the opposite ... she re-iterates her claim that Patrick murdered Meredith. She did absolutely nothing to clear Patrick. She did not go to the prosecutor and state in no uncertain terms that she was an extremely dishonest woman with an absence of moral integrity. She gave statements, and stood behind those statements, which resulted in putting an innocent man in prison. She left Patrick to rot in prison and she has been convicted of this crime. We know that she communicated her lies to her mother ... but no one went to the prosecutor with the truth. That is the sad truth.

 

[Sonata]

I would like to see justice for Meredith Kercher.

It would be nice if we could all just accept that this is what everyone wants. I would be immensely surprised if this is not the case.

I do find it a bit frustrating when people start saying things like that as if it isn't a given. But perhaps this is too personal and OT :waitasec:

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I do not agree that the statement was retracted. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

IMO the retraction is in the second memoriale of 7 November, from which Malkmus quoted. She also wrote a letter to her lawyer on 9 November, which said the same thing. Is the second memoriale a retraction or not?