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

[trillian]

Otto -

So, did Amanda take a shower and blow dry her hair or not?
Why does not flushing make her a killer?
She knew the blood and the mat and the poo was there and left it because...???
Would a killer not flush the accomplices dna to frame him and then blame someone competely different? Please share the motivation for this. It sounds like a very bizarre scenario.

eta: Rudy obviously told the truth about using the toilet. It's clear he did. But why do you so readily believe his stomach was upset by a kabob? When did he eat the kabob? Where did he buy it? How long does it take to get sick from a kabob and need to use a toilet? Do you know?

Are all of Rudy's statements true or just some of them? What makes one story true and the rest false?

 

[otto]

Otto -

So, did Amanda take a shower and blow dry her hair or not?
Why does not flushing make her a killer?
She knew the blood and the mat and the poo was there and left it because...???
Would a killer not flush the accomplices dna to frame him and then blame someone competely different? Please share the motivation for this. It sounds like a very bizarre scenario.

eta: Rudy obviously told the truth about using the toilet. It's clear he did. But why do you so readily believe his stomach was upset by a kabob? When did he eat the kabob? Where did he buy it? How long does it take to get sick from a kabob and need to use a toilet? Do you know?

Are all of Rudy's statements true or just some of them? What makes one story true and the rest false?

I don`t think that anyone has suggested that Knox`s strange activities at the cottage on the day Meredith`s body was found make her a murderer.

It is the totality of the evidence that resulted in the courts finding Guede, Sollecito and Knox guilty of the murder of Meredith.

 

[trillian]

I don`t think that anyone has suggested that Knox`s strange activities at the cottage on the day Meredith`s body was found make her a murderer.

It is the totality of the evidence that resulted in the courts finding Guede, Sollecito and Knox guilty of the murder of Meredith.

OK! I don't find her behavior strange at all but lets just disagree on that and leave behavior out of it then, ok?

What do you have left?

Footprints that tested negative for blood. (and if you say they were blood at one time, how did she remove it all and dispose of the cleaning implements and not leave smears where she cleaned? How did she get it out of the grout?)

-Accusations of Lumumba. Fed his name by the police who had decided that the text msg meant something. This confession was presented "like a dream" and not reality by Amanda. It was not the person she purportedly was in cahoots with either. This 'confession' is false and was rescinded. I sure wish they had taped it!

-A knife she took from Raffs place to use in an unpremeditated murder because she used a big kitchen knife for protection? And it happens to be the only knife they took in to test out of all the knives in the drawer. yeah, right. Also, it had no blood on it. None.

-None of Amandas dna or fingerprints in the room. No bloody clothes or shoes. No clothes or shoes missing.
-No correspondence with Guede.
-No motive for murder.

Remember the crime scene photos? Amanda must be the luckiest killer around not to have left any evidence in that room.

So what exactly is it that makes her so guilty if we leave your opinion of her behavior out of it?

 

[Footwarrior]

Some people might call that little room a laundry room, others might think of it as part of the bathroom. It is the place the occupants of the cottage used to dry and arrange their hair.

 

[Kaly99]

Knox testified that there was no blood in the bathroom the night before, and that she saw the blood in the bathroom after finding the front door of the cottage wide open. We have all seen the bloody bare foot print on the bathmat, so there was clearly more than a drop, or two, of blood. In addition to having all of the trial evidence available online, I can easily show you this blood:

That image has been enhanced to make the footprint easier to see; the real print was much fainter:

 

[otto]

Some people might call that little room a laundry room, others might think of it as part of the bathroom. It is the place the occupants of the cottage used to dry and arrange their hair.

If Knox went to the laundry room to do her hair, and if it is true that her roommates hair things were in the laundry room, then why did she tell the court that saw the unflushed toilet while doing her hair in the bathroom?

 

[otto]

That image has been enhanced to make the footprint easier to see; the real print was much fainter:

I really don`t see the value in debating whether photos are enhanced or faded ... either argument can be made. The point is that Knox saw the blood, knew it was blood, knew that the front door of the cottage was wide open and didn`t care. Most (if not all) people that come home and find a scene like that are alarmed.

 

[MichaelSmith]

I really don`t see the value in debating whether photos are enhanced or faded ... either argument can be made. The point is that Knox saw the blood, knew it was blood, knew that the front door of the cottage was wide open and didn`t care. Most (if not all) people that come home and find a scene like that are alarmed.

The postal police weren't concerned.

 

[otto]

The postal police weren't concerned.

The postal police were unprepared to break down the bedroom door (it`s probably not in their job description to break into bedrooms), but they were concerned enough to stand aside while two others broke down the bedroom door.

Furthermore, Knox told the postal police that Meredith routinely locked her bedroom door and that the locked door was not out of character. Filomina insisted that it was completely out of character for Meredith to lock her door and insisted that the door be broken. Clearly the postal police were given conflicting information from the two roommates that were there.

I don`t think that anyone can conclude that the postal police were unconcerned ... unless you have a link for that.

 

[Kaly99]

I really don`t see the value in debating whether photos are enhanced or faded ... either argument can be made. The point is that Knox saw the blood, knew it was blood, knew that the front door of the cottage was wide open and didn`t care. Most (if not all) people that come home and find a scene like that are alarmed.

I posted the picture because you said "there was clearly more than a drop, or two, of blood", and then posted the footprint to prove it. I wanted to show that the blood on the bathmat really wasn't all that noticeable.

I believe Amanda said she didn't realize initially that the mark on the bathmat was blood, that it just looked like a 'smudge'. So the only traces she knew were blood were the spots in the sink, which really were just a drop or two.

ETA: Also, there's no debate to be had over whether the photo you posted was enhanced - it was enhanced, so that it could be better compared with Raffaele and Rudy's footprints. It didn't look like that in real life, as the other photo makes clear.

 

[otto]

I posted the picture because you said "there was clearly more than a drop, or two, of blood", and then posted the footprint to prove it. I wanted to show that the blood on the bathmat really wasn't all that noticeable.

I believe Amanda said she didn't realize initially that the mark on the bathmat was blood, that it just looked like a 'smudge'. So the only traces she knew were blood were the spots in the sink, which really were just a drop or two.

ETA: Also, there's no debate to be had over whether the photo you posted was enhanced - it was enhanced, so that it could be better compared with Raffaele and Rudy's footprints. It didn't look like that in real life, as the other photo makes clear.

My only point is that by the time a photo makes it`s way to the internet, there is absolutely no way to know how the original appeared, and that applies to every digital photo.

 

[trillian]

The postal police were unprepared to break down the bedroom door (it`s probably not in their job description to break into bedrooms), but they were concerned enough to stand aside while two others broke down the bedroom door.

Furthermore, Knox told the postal police that Meredith routinely locked her bedroom door and that the locked door was not out of character. Filomina insisted that it was completely out of character for Meredith to lock her door and insisted that the door be broken. Clearly the postal police were given conflicting information from the two roommates that were there.

I don`t think that anyone can conclude that the postal police were unconcerned ... unless you have a link for that.

So, Amanda lied about Meredith locking her door even though she had known her only a short time and her door had been locked before when she went away. And even though the other police had already been called by Amanda and Raff. And we know the postal police got what Amanda said exactly right because all parties involved spoke fluent Italian.

And this is evidence against Amanda, how?

Guess what? If she really wanted to avoid all this there was no need to lie to anyone. Or call anyone. Or talk about open doors and locked doors and missing phones and broken windows. Simply go to Raffs and go on the day trip! Isn't it odd that she stayed there?
Hint: The actual killer didn't stick around.

 

[otto]

So, Amanda lied about Meredith locking her door even though she had known her only a short time and her door had been locked before when she went away. And even though the other police had already been called by Amanda and Raff. And we know the postal police got what Amanda said exactly right because all parties involved spoke fluent Italian.

And this is evidence against Amanda, how?

Guess what? If she really wanted to avoid all this there was no need to lie to anyone. Or call anyone. Or talk about open doors and locked doors and missing phones and broken windows. Simply go to Raffs and go on the day trip! Isn't it odd that she stayed there?
Hint: The actual killer didn't stick around.

I debated all aspects of the case during the trial. I was satisfied with the guilty verdict in part because I am inclined to trust the department of justice, and in part because I believed that all three were involved in the murder. When the case was appealed, I was shocked to learn that much of the evidence was ignored, but I accepted that decision. I assumed that there was more to the case than I understood. When the appeal was annulled, I was again shocked. That annulment made sense to me, because it was consistent with how I initially understood the facts of the case.

I can`t go back to debating whether Knox ate dinner three times on the night of the murder, and that`s why she provided three separate times for having eaten dinner, or whether she ate dinner once and lied about the dinner time twice. One thing that everyone should know by now is that Amanda does not tell the truth.

At this point, I am interested in understanding the grounds for the annulment and the next appeal decision.

 

[Kavya01]

I debated all aspects of the case during the trial. I was satisfied with the guilty verdict in part because I am inclined to trust the department of justice, and in part because I believed that all three were involved in the murder. When the case was appealed, I was shocked to learn that much of the evidence was ignored, but I accepted that decision. I assumed that there was more to the case than I understood. When the appeal was annulled, I was again shocked. That annulment made sense to me, because it was consistent with how I initially understood the facts of the case.

I can`t go back to debating whether Knox ate dinner three times on the night of the murder, and that`s why she provided three separate times for having eaten dinner, or whether she ate dinner once and lied about the dinner time twice. One thing that everyone should know by now is that Amanda does not tell the truth.

At this point, I am interested in understanding the grounds for the annulment and the next appeal decision.

Just wanted to say you expressed my own personal sentiments so succinctly and well. Therefor, I wanted to thank you.
:tyou:

 

[Gecko100]

It wasn't her bathroom, but her roommate's. I think most people's "immediate reaction" to seeing poo in someone's else's toilet is disgust. Whether they decide to flush it or not is not going to be the same for every person.

Now that you've established the only reason to leave it is to tie it to Guede, please work that in to the rest of the prosecution theory that said person then intentionally blamed a person other than Guede for the crime.

I believe the evidence provided to the court was overwhelmingly clear. Further, this same evidence has also been provided in the higher courts and they came to the same conclusion. Why would I doubt the court's ability to separate fact from fiction? They are esteemed judges.
I was there at the time of the trial of Lindy Chamberlain, and thought the verdict outrageous.
But contextually, it wasn't surprising for the times. Australia in those days was very women/black unfriendly, and treated 'out of the box' religions with a measure of fear, especially in remoter places like Alice Springs/Darwin, which were even more isolated from the mainstream.
It was only a few years earlier that women were welcome in pubs!
Science has exploded exponentially since then.

 

[Malkmus]

I believe the evidence provided to the court was overwhelmingly clear. Further, this same evidence has also been provided in the higher courts and they came to the same conclusion. Why would I doubt the court's ability to separate fact from fiction? They are esteemed judges.
I was there at the time of the trial of Lindy Chamberlain, and thought the verdict outrageous.
But contextually, it wasn't surprising for the times. Australia in those days was very women/black unfriendly, and treated 'out of the box' religions with a measure of fear, especially in remoter places like Alice Springs/Darwin, which were even more isolated from the mainstream.
It was only a few years earlier that women were welcome in pubs!
Science has exploded exponentially since then.

I see a lot in common with this case and Lindy Chamberlain.

The problem with the evidence in this case is that everything sounds compelling until it's put under a microscope. So something like "bloody footprints" being found may sound solid until you discover that 100 percent of the ones attributed to the defendant actually tested negative for blood.
"Mixed blood" of the defendant and the victim, again, sounds solid until you discover it was just the victim's blood on the defendant's DNA in their own home.
The "confession" from the defendant sounds extremely compelling until you realize that the she was denied a lawyer, the wording is written in police legalese, it contains misinterpretation of her own text message to make it fit into the police's theory of the crime, and she immediately afterwards writes in her own words that she doesn't think those things happened.
Then you have things like witnesses whose testimony sounds damning until you realize they changed their story after a year, and it's in conflict with other known facts.

Sure, I guess there's a reason that the supreme court overturned it, but it's important to understand that they didn't issue a guilty verdict, just a retrial, and let's not ignore the independent experts, judge and jury who acquitted them in the first place.

Another problem is the inability of anyone to put together a cohesive timeline of the events in which they involve Amanda and Raf. That's a challenge no one has been able to meet yet, and it says a lot about the case against them, moreso than the SC issuing a retrial, IMO.

 

[Malkmus]

Yes, you do. If he can read then he could have read the statement. Doesn't matter if he understands what he reads. He knew he was going to get questioned about it anyway. The reading part was just a formality.

We're talking about him being asked by the judge if he understood parts of his own letter after it was read by his lawyer, and him not understanding certain words. That's different from him being illiterate.

 

[Malkmus]

He answered questions so he talked. He refused to talk about his own involvement, and he acknowledged the part where he mentions AK and RS as the killers. I think we all know he was involved as well, so how can he be mistaken about who was with him? He either tells the truth or he lies. If he lies then this could have serious legal consequences, and for him there was nothing to gain at that point since his own trial was already finished.

So please explain who wrote the statement, and why Guede would risk extra jail time by playing along at that point, and what is the evidence for all of this?

According to you he was "mistaken" when he wrote there was an unidentified Italian man and no Amanda. So he can be mistaken, and he is a liar. There's no doubt about that. Anything he says is going to be self-serving. IMO, his lawyer "helped" him write a letter he could barely comprehend. If he was truly seeking to implicate Amanda and Raf then he should be able to offer a real version of what happened that night, not simply use them as a scapegoat.

 

[Malkmus]

I'm sorry, but I just don't see it that way. Guede had been sick because of a bad kabob and had spent a fair amount of time in the toilet due to that upset stomach. Then, we have Knox, about 12 hours later, obliviously blow drying her hair next to that unflushed toilet. No matter how you spin it, it's just not normal ... in my humble opinion. Even if it was normal for Knox, we also have the wide open front door, the blood on the floor and sink in the other bathroom, a locked bedroom and who knows what else ... all of which Knox apparently thought was completely normal because ... that was what she was used to???

Again, the "it's strange" argument. So how does her not flushing the toilet fit into her guilt? Keep in mind she never implicated Rudy in the crime at any point, and was unable to even name him as a visitor to the house when she listed all the other guys who's been there.

 

[Malkmus]

There is nothing to support the claim that he was unable to understand the words in his statement. He chose not to speak. That was his right and he exercised it. It had nothing to do with being literate.

Ah, sure, but it sure was suspicious to everyone when Raf "refused" to testify. Then we learned that he was never asked to.