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

[otto]

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?

Knox was found guilty of falsely implicating an innocent man for murder. She spent time in jail for this conviction. Because of this conviction, many countries will not allow her to cross their borders. Her murder conviction is in the appeals process, but her conviction for the criminal activites associated with ruining a man's life is intact.

Although she had every opportunity to inform authorities that she was a dishonest woman when she implicated Patrick, she did not take advantage of the opportunities. At no time did she inform authorities that she told them lies.

 

[Malkmus]

Who edited it?

Claire Wachtel is the editor.

 

[Malkmus]

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.

Sorry it's so confusing to you. For other such as myself, seeing a police interrogation unrecorded when it should have been, a prosecutor who lies about why it wasn't, withholding the suspect's right to an attorney, an interpreter who wasn't satisfied with the suspect's initial claim that she wasn't at the scene of the crime and needs to convince her otherwise, and a statement written in legalese that only fit the police's own misinterpretation of a "good night" text message... seeing all these things paints a very clear picture of what happened. That anyone could recognize all these things happened and not be very skeptical of the police in this case is bewildering to me.

 

[Malkmus]

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

Yes, because the word "pinpointed" is only in the PMF/TJMK version, showing that there is a possible translation error, and secondly because it is on conflict with them simultaneously saying "around 10:13". I don't believe they would nail the TOD down to the exact minute, while at the same time saying "no later than 10:13". It's a window.

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.

Until there is some clarity on why just the TJMK/PMF version contains the word "pinpoint", not sure how to proceed as obviously it's creating confusion.

 

[Malkmus]

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

I'm reminded of something else you wrote when I read this.

(snip)
The problem with pulling a phrase, or sentence, from a comment is that anything taken out of context means something else.

So when you say she stood by her statements regarding Patrick, it's disingenuous to not include the rest of the phrase which says "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 tha[n] what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house."

 

[Malkmus]

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. (snip)

Right. Because going to the prosecutor and saying "I'm an extremely dishonest woman with an absence of moral integrity" really would have gotten Patrick cleared.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Knox was found guilty of falsely implicating an innocent man for murder.
SNIP

I edited the rest of your answer because essentially none of it is an answer to the question that was asked: "Are the second memoriale and the letter to her lawyer retractions of her accusation or not." Knox is innocent of the calunnia charge unless the SC confirms the conviction. Assuming that they overturn it, would that change your argument in some way?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

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.

It is one more example of Mignini conjecturing, for one thing. Mignini's theory demands that Meredith have more than an hour of time alone at the flat (actually almost two hours). Eating a mushroom would be consistent with her having a few minutes by herself. I don't think she had much time at all before she became aware of Guede's presence.

 

[Footwarrior]

It is one more example of Mignini conjecturing, for one thing. Mignini's theory demands that Meredith have more than an hour of time alone at the flat (actually almost two hours). Eating a mushroom would be consistent with her having a few minutes by herself. I don't think she had much time at all before she became aware of Guede's presence.

The physical evidence doesn't fit with Meredith settling in for an hour or two before being attacked. She hadn't attempted to call her mother again. The history book she had borrowed showed no sign she had started to read it. Meredith hadn't even taken off her outer jacket before being attacked.

The odd phone call attempts at 9:58 and 10:00 pm don't fit with Meredith being in control of her phone at that time. Nor does the IP connection with her phone at 10:13 pm that came via another cell tower. And whatever happened that night was over by about 10:30 pm when witnesses in a broken down car across the street reported the cottage was being quiet and dark.

We know that Meredith arrived home at just after 9 pm. The evidence points to her being attacked almost immediately.

 

[sherlockh]

Yes, because the word "pinpointed" is only in the PMF/TJMK version, showing that there is a possible translation error, and secondly because it is on conflict with them simultaneously saying "around 10:13". I don't believe they would nail the TOD down to the exact minute, while at the same time saying "no later than 10:13". It's a window.

Until there is some clarity on why just the TJMK/PMF version contains the word "pinpoint", not sure how to proceed as obviously it's creating confusion.

I suggest you read the Galati appeal and count how many times the TOD of 10:15pm is mentioned. But you are not the only one confused. So is Galati and it has nothing to do with any translation but everything with the Appeal Courts lack of argumentation. It is extremely silly that there are still posters hanging on to a TOD of 9pm or 9:30pm. That is clearly not what is on the table now. From the Galati appeal:

The hypothesis about the mobile phones, unspecific, unanchored to objective facts and also contrasting with the declarations of Rudy Guede in his Skype call with his friend (held truthful by the CAA), has been judged valid and acceptable by the Court, and, under this aspect, the time of death has been brought forward to 10:15 PM!

There is no denying that this is what the Appeal Court came up with. Not 10:13pm. He clearly says that 10:13pm is the latest time where the attack starts and shortly followed by the death (at 10:15pm). From the Appeal Courts Report:

the aggression, and hence the death shortly thereafter, occurred much before the time supposed by the Corte di Assise of first level: certainly not later than 10:13 pm

Why the Appeal Court thinks the attack was short is again not explained. The only source for a lightning fast attack was Rudy Guede, and this was a central reason for the courts in Rudy's trial to reject his 'innocent toilet story'. There was no way this was a short attack which would not have been noticed by Rudy while in the toilet for 5 minutes.

The Appeal Court is supporting Rudy's 'innocent toilet story' in that aspect and that is a frightening thought.

 

[Malkmus]

I suggest you read the Galati appeal and count how many times the TOD of 10:15pm is mentioned. But you are not the only one confused. So is Galati and it has nothing to do with any translation but everything with the Appeal Courts lack of argumentation. It is extremely silly that there are still posters hanging on to a TOD of 9pm or 9:30pm.

For the record, Sherlock, I believe the time of death is much closer to a window of 9 -9:30.

That is clearly not what is on the table now. From the Galati appeal:

There is no denying that this is what the Appeal Court came up with. Not 10:13pm. He clearly says that 10:13pm is the latest time where the attack starts and shortly followed by the death (at 10:15pm). From the Appeal Courts Report:

Why the Appeal Court thinks the attack was short is again not explained. The only source for a lightning fast attack was Rudy Guede, and this was a central reason for the courts in Rudy's trial to reject his 'innocent toilet story'. There was no way this was a short attack which would not have been noticed by Rudy while in the toilet for 5 minutes.

The Appeal Court is supporting Rudy's 'innocent toilet story' in that aspect and that is a frightening thought.

Again, "no later than 10:13" is an approximation implying it could have happened earlier than that. Galati's problem with the TOD is not that the court is saying it happened at that exact time, but that it happened so much earlier than the prosecution's TOD of 11:30. This is the issue at hand. I agree that it happened way before 11:30, "no later than 10:13", but probably closer to 9:15.

 

[sherlockh]

For the record, Sherlock, I believe the time of death is much closer to a window of 9 -9:30.

Again, "no later than 10:13" is an approximation implying it could have happened earlier than that. Galati's problem with the TOD is not that the court is saying it happened at that exact time, but that it happened so much earlier than the prosecution's TOD of 11:30. This is the issue at hand. I agree that it happened way before 11:30, "no later than 10:13", but probably closer to 9:15.

As I showed about 3 times now, 'no later than 10:13' relates to the start of the aggression, and 10:15pm relates to TOD. The aggression could have started a bit earlier than 10:13pm but not much since the judge says that death occurred shortly after. That is why I said according to the Appeal Court the attack started between 10pm (approx) and 10:13pm. 9:15pm is not shortly before 10:15pm so you are contradicting the Appeal Courts time-line.

 

[Sonata]

As I showed about 3 times now, 'no later than 10:13' relates to the start of the aggression, and 10:15pm relates to TOD. The aggression could have started a bit earlier than 10:13pm but not much since the judge says that death occurred shortly after. That is why I said according to the Appeal Court the attack started between 10pm (approx) and 10:13pm. 9:15pm is not shortly before 10:15pm so you are contradicting the Appeal Courts time-line.

I still don't understand how 'no later' could actually mean 'no earlier'.

To me 'no later' is a very clear statement indicating that it is the cut off point for the last possible time and not the first possible time of the attack. Please explain how this is not the case as I am beginning to feel quite stupid!

 

[sherlockh]

I still don't understand how 'no later' could actually mean 'no earlier'.

To me 'no later' is a very clear statement indicating that it is the cut off point for the last possible time and not the first possible time of the attack. Please explain how this is not the case as I am beginning to feel quite stupid!

Yes, that is the case. Where do I say it was the first possible time?

 

[Sonata]

As I showed about 3 times now, 'no later than 10:13' relates to the start of the aggression, and 10:15pm relates to TOD. The aggression could have started a bit earlier than 10:13pm but not much since the judge says that death occurred shortly after. That is why I said according to the Appeal Court the attack started between 10pm (approx) and 10:13pm. 9:15pm is not shortly before 10:15pm so you are contradicting the Appeal Courts time-line.

I don't understand. When it says that the TOD was shortly after and 10.15 is mentioned, that is only with reference to the 10.13 cut off. My understanding is that the TOD is shortly after the attack started, and the attack started at 10.13 at the very latest.

I don't see anything saying that the TOD was definitely 10.15. I see that it is 10.15 at the very latest.

 

[Sonata]

Yes, that is the case. Where do I say it was the first possible time?

Sorry sherlockh; you don't. I had just gotten that impression from what you were saying.

I can see now that the argument here is about whether they are stating the TOD as definitely 10.15 or whether they are just saying that is the latest time.

 

[sherlockh]

Sorry sherlockh; you don't. I had just gotten that impression from what you were saying.

I can see now that the argument here is about whether they are stating the TOD as definitely 10.15 or whether they are just saying that is the latest time.

Thanks. I am not even sure if that is the argument. There shouldn't be any discussion about where the Appeal Court puts the TOD. They say it clearly and the Galati appeal document mentions it many times. It is just that some people would like to push their own theories about earlier TOD's and therefore try to confuse by mixing up statements from the court documents (and don't want to admit that they actually disagree with the Appeal Court). Just stick to the official court documents

From the Galati appeal:

Suddenly changing its own conviction about the time of death, initially obtained from Guede’s Skype call with his friend Benedetti, the Court, after having formulated these other hypotheses on the subject of the handling of one of the victim’s mobile phones, fixes the time of the murder at around 10:15 PM.

 

[Sonata]

Thanks. I am not even sure if that is the argument. There shouldn't be any discussion about where the Appeal Court puts the TOD. They say it clearly and the Galati appeal document mentions it many times. It is just that some people would like to push their own theories about earlier TOD's and therefore try to confuse by mixing up statements from the court documents (and don't want to admit that they actually disagree with the Appeal Court). Just stick to the official court documents

Thanks. Not that I necessarily agree with their conclusions but that's another kettle of fish. It sounds like it's the cell phone that clinched the TOD for them. That seems sort of weird to me, I would have thought the phone activity would probably have happened a while after the actual death. Surely he would have had other things to worry about immediately after?

Thank you for taking the time to explain this clearly.

ETA: hang on - this is such an iffy translation I think I just got confused again! Are they saying that Rudy's conversation clinched it or the mobile phone activity? It could read as either in the translation.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

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/

Whoa ... regarding the "title" or "subtitle" of this book "Waiting to be Heard" :

AK has been HEARD, loud and clear, for the past 5 years, particularly here in the U.S.A. ...

AK has had NO shortage of coverage by the U.S. News Media, which IMO is "mind boggling" considering she accused an INNOCENT AFRICAN (black) MAN of the murder of Meredith, let him sit in jail for 2 weeks, and AK never said a word to help poor Mr. Lumumba ... then Rudy Guede, another African (black) man's DNA and prints were found in Meredith's room, which is the only reason Mr. Lumumba was released by the LE in Italy, but NO thanks to AK ...

Ah ... what Amanda did reminds me Susan Smith, who also accused a "black man" of killing her children when SHE did it ... another one is Casey Anthony, who accused an Hispanic woman of "kidnapping" her child, when SHE did it ! What AK, SS and CA did was absolutely DESPICABLE to accuse INNOCENT people of the crimes they themselves committed ...

Amanda has been heard all right ... BUT it has NOT been the TRUTH ...

MOO JMO MOO ...

 

[Sonata]

Whoa ... regarding the "title" or "subtitle" of this book "Waiting to be Heard" :

AK has been HEARD, loud and clear, for the past 5 years, particularly here in the U.S.A. ...

I do take your point, but I would disagree. Regardless of whether or not you believe she is guilty, she spent 4 years behind bars whilst others constantly talked about what she may or may not have done. She, herself, was not heard.

Personally I would find it super frustrating whatever the situation to not be able to use my own voice to put my story forward while the international press were all over my story.

Yes, she had plenty of people speaking on her side, but she had just as many saying the opposite. And all of this was other people speaking - not her.