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

[Gecko100]

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.

I agree that media and myth very much played into the startling lynch mob mentality during the LC case, but so did prevailing societal conditions.
I am also seeing level of media/myth stuff with the three protagonists in this case too, and I think a certain element of racism. But the social conditions/scientific advances are far away from 1980.
Apart from AK and LC both being women, not much else.
We will have to agree to disagree on other factors, because my mind is firmly made up on AK and RS.
I enjoy reading the debate though!

 

[otto]

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.

BBM

It was not this role of the court to issue a guilty verdict. It was the role of the court to hear the appeal from the prosecution regarding the validity of the appeal decision. As a result, that appeal decision was annulled. A re-trial has not been ordered. Only the appeal phase of the trial will be repeated. The guilty verdicts are still on record, but they are under appeal. It's not unusual for convicted people to be released from prison pending the appeal process of a trial.

The judge and jury convicted Knox and Sollecito for the murder of Meredith. That verdict was appealed and as a result of the appeal decision, Knox and Sollecito were released from prison. That did not signify the beginning, or the end, of the trial, it was part of the trial process. The appeal decision was successfully appealed by the prosecution, so we will simply have a repeat of the appeal process.

Regarding the timeline ... If everyone was telling the truth, the timeline would be crystal clear. When the timeline is not crystal clear, it means that some of the parties are providing information that does not add up.

 

[Malkmus]

I agree that media and myth very much played into the startling lynch mob mentality during the LC case, but so did prevailing societal conditions.
I am also seeing level of media/myth stuff with the three protagonists in this case too, and I think a certain element of racism. But the social conditions/scientific advances are far away from 1980.
Apart from AK and LC both being women, not much else.
We will have to agree to disagree on other factors, because my mind is firmly made up on AK and RS.
I enjoy reading the debate though!

The apparent "strange behavior" on Lindy Chamberlain's part was a huge factor in the public mind about why she "must be" guilty, specifically her lack of emotion. That same sentiment has been brought up in this thread more times than I can count. Another similarity was evidence that sounded damning at the time but later turned out to be nothing, specifically blood found in their car that turned out to be something else.
There is certainly more in common with these two cases than just the gender of one of the defendants. Doing a search in this thread for Lindy will bring up more on this topic.

 

[Malkmus]

BBM

It was not this role of the court to issue a guilty verdict. It was the role of the court to hear the appeal from the prosecution regarding the validity of the appeal decision. As a result, that appeal decision was annulled. A re-trial has not been ordered. Only the appeal phase of the trial will be repeated. The guilty verdicts are still on record, but they are under appeal. It's not unusual for convicted people to be released from prison pending the appeal process of a trial.

The judge and jury convicted Knox and Sollecito for the murder of Meredith. That verdict was appealed and as a result of the appeal decision, Knox and Sollecito were released from prison. That did not signify the beginning, or the end, of the trial, it was part of the trial process. The appeal decision was successfully appealed by the prosecution, so we will simply have a repeat of the appeal process.

Regarding the timeline ... If everyone was telling the truth, the timeline would be crystal clear. When the timeline is not crystal clear, it means that some of the parties are providing information that does not add up.

Correct, they did not issue a retrial, but a retrial of the appeal is a direct result of their ruling. And while the ruling annuls the acquittal, and they are back to a guilty status, it's not as if the SC declared her guilty from their findings.

 

[otto]

Correct, they did not issue a retrial, but a retrial of the appeal is a direct result of their ruling. And while the ruling annuls the acquittal, and they are back to a guilty status, it's not as if the SC declared her guilty from their findings.

It may seem like splitting hairs, but, in my opinion, a retrial is something that would occur if there was a mistrial. That is not what is happening here. There has been a trial and there is a verdict. In many countries, both the defense and the prosecution have the option to appeal the verdict.

Because this was a guilty verdict, the defense appealed the verdict. That appeal was successful, but the verdict still had to be confirmed at a separate court hearing. The prosecution then successfully appealed the appeal decision. As a result, the appeal decision was annulled, leaving the guilty verdict intact.

The appeal, which is not a retrial, will be heard in the Fall. The supreme court did not have the authority to affirm the guilty verdict. Their only role was to determine whether the appeal decision was logical. They determined that it was not. Therefore, to suggest that something can be concluded due to the fact that the Supreme Court did not affirm the guilty verdict is misleading. The Supreme Court did not have the authority to address that point at this stage of the trial, so it is neither here nor there that they did not declare Knox and Sollecito guilty during the appeal review.

 

[otto]

The apparent "strange behavior" on Lindy Chamberlain's part was a huge factor in the public mind about why she "must be" guilty, specifically her lack of emotion. That same sentiment has been brought up in this thread more times than I can count. Another similarity was evidence that sounded damning at the time but later turned out to be nothing, specifically blood found in their car that turned out to be something else.
There is certainly more in common with these two cases than just the gender of one of the defendants. Doing a search in this thread for Lindy will bring up more on this topic.

It seems to me that every case has some similarity to another case. Behaviour analysis is obviously one aspect of criminal investigation, so naturally behaviour of suspects in analyzed. To suggest that there is one case from a few decades ago where behavior analysis when wrong, therefore it must be wrong in this case doesn't really seem to follow.

 

[Malkmus]

It seems to me that every case has some similarity to another case. Behaviour analysis is obviously one aspect of criminal investigation, so naturally behaviour of suspects in analyzed. To suggest that there is one case from a few decades ago where behavior analysis when wrong, therefore it must be wrong in this case doesn't really seem to follow.

I simply drew comparisons between the two caes because some said there was none. The inference you insinuated (in bold) is not what I said.

 

[Malkmus]

It may seem like splitting hairs, but, in my opinion, a retrial is something that would occur if there was a mistrial. That is not what is happening here. There has been a trial and there is a verdict. In many countries, both the defense and the prosecution have the option to appeal the verdict.

Because this was a guilty verdict, the defense appealed the verdict. That appeal was successful, but the verdict still had to be confirmed at a separate court hearing. The prosecution then successfully appealed the appeal decision. As a result, the appeal decision was annulled, leaving the guilty verdict intact.

The appeal, which is not a retrial, will be heard in the Fall. The supreme court did not have the authority to affirm the guilty verdict. Their only role was to determine whether the appeal decision was logical. They determined that it was not. Therefore, to suggest that something can be concluded due to the fact that the Supreme Court did not affirm the guilty verdict is misleading. The Supreme Court did not have the authority to address that point at this stage of the trial, so it is neither here nor there that they did not declare Knox and Sollecito guilty during the appeal review.

I made no such conclusion. This is the second post in a row where you've done this.

 

[MichaelSmith]

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???

There's no evidence Guede ate a kabob nor any he owned an Ipod. The police went to the kebob shop asking if they remembered him but they didn't. It's just another one of his lies since common sense says he was sitting on the toilet when Meredith walked in the door and he didn't want to alert her by flushing the toilet. Maybe he thought he could get out the door without being seen? Maybe he waited a few minutes working out his options?

It's in his appeal document about the kebob shop owner and no Ipod ever recovered.

You say she wasn't alarmed but yet she called her monther, Filomena, Meredith, Raffaele called his sister who was a cop and then called the police. It doesn't make much sense to claim she thought everything was perfectly normal when they're raising the alarm to people something isn't right.

 

[otto]

Here's a question I'm curious about:

If all this business with Knox and Sollecito convicted of murder is due to the shenanigans of a "delusional" prosecutor pre-occupied with sex cult imaginings, why it is that a completely different prosecutor was able to successfully argue that the appeal of that conviction should be annulled? Surely he was very familiar with the facts to pull that off. Is it now a huge conspiracy, with multiple delusional prosecutors, excluding the other one involved in the trial. No one has accused her of being delusional, yet she too believed that there was sufficient evidence to argue the case.

Is this particular prosecutor also delusional, or is this a case that can be independently argued by two separate prosecutors ... or a vast conspiracy?

 

[otto]

I made no such conclusion. This is the second post in a row where you've done this.

Apologies. I must have misunderstood. I thought I read that the court annulled the appeal and they also did not affirm the conviction. I suppose I didn't think that the two points had any connection, since the court's only task was to annul or affirm the appeal ... nothing to do with annulling or affirming the conviction.

 

[otto]

There's no evidence Guede ate a kabob nor any he owned an Ipod. The police went to the kebob shop asking if they remembered him but they didn't. It's just another one of his lies since common sense says he was sitting on the toilet when Meredith walked in the door and he didn't want to alert her by flushing the toilet. Maybe he thought he could get out the door without being seen? Maybe he waited a few minutes working out his options?

It's in his appeal document about the kebob shop owner and no Ipod ever recovered.

You say she wasn't alarmed but yet she called her monther, Filomena, Meredith, Raffaele called his sister who was a cop and then called the police. It doesn't make much sense to claim she thought everything was perfectly normal when they're raising the alarm to people something isn't right.

I don't think you were posting during the trial and appeal phase of this case, but I think we've beaten it all tooooo death.

Is there any point in debating whether Guede ate a kebab? The toilet wasn't flushed, it wasn't pretty and Knox did nothing about it. That's a fact.

Knox called her mother before anything had happened. That's the problem.

 

[MichaelSmith]

I don't think you were posting during the trial and appeal phase of this case, but I think we've beaten it all tooooo death.

Is there any point in debating whether Guede ate a kebab? The toilet wasn't flushed, it wasn't pretty and Knox did nothing about it. That's a fact.

Knox called her mother before anything had happened. That's the problem.

You were stating Guede ate a Kebab and I was just pointing out there's no evidence of that. I think it's another one of his lies because he needed an excuse to explain the poo and not flushing when the italian dude he couldn't indentify killed Meredith.

 

[Malkmus]

I don't think you were posting during the trial and appeal phase of this case, but I think we've beaten it all tooooo death.

Is there any point in debating whether Guede ate a kebab? The toilet wasn't flushed, it wasn't pretty and Knox did nothing about it. That's a fact.

Knox called her mother before anything had happened. That's the problem.

They also called 112 "before anything happened". The call to her mother and the call to police were less than 5 minutes apart, and both were approximately 30 minutes before the door was broken down.

 

[Malkmus]

Here's a question I'm curious about:

If all this business with Knox and Sollecito convicted of murder is due to the shenanigans of a "delusional" prosecutor pre-occupied with sex cult imaginings, why it is that a completely different prosecutor was able to successfully argue that the appeal of that conviction should be annulled? Surely he was very familiar with the facts to pull that off. Is it now a huge conspiracy, with multiple delusional prosecutors, excluding the other one involved in the trial. No one has accused her of being delusional, yet she too believed that there was sufficient evidence to argue the case.

Is this particular prosecutor also delusional, or is this a case that can be independently argued by two separate prosecutors ... or a vast conspiracy?

Personally, I don't think Mignini is delusional. Just a seedy prosecutor who will do anything to further his career. Unfortunately this is seen time and time again. Even the guy who put away Michael Morton for 25 years for a crime he didn't commit had no resentment when he was freed, despite witholding exculpatory evidence from the defense that could have prevented the whole thing.

 

[otto]

Personally, I don't think Mignini is delusional. Just a seedy prosecutor who will do anything to further his career. Unfortunately this is seen time and time again. Even the guy who put away Michael Morton for 25 years for a crime he didn't commit had no resentment when he was freed, despite witholding exculpatory evidence from the defense that could have prevented the whole thing.

I think this is another situation where the different legal systems in Italy and the US result in misunderstandings about whether doing the job of prosecutor furthers a career .

In the US, where prosecutors are elected, the prosecutor seems to almost have a conflict of interest when deciding to proceed with a case. That is, if the prosecutor decides to try a case and fails, that could reflect poorly on the prosecutor. If it happens a couple of times, that prosecutor could be out of a job because he/she will not be re-elected. Conversely, if a prosecutor is repeatedly successful, particularly with high profile cases, that almost always furthers his/her career. In the US, to say that a prosecutor made decisions on the basis of furthering a career makes perfect sense.

In countries like Italy, prosecutors are civil servants that are hired to do the job. Doing a good job or a poor job has very little to do with furthering a career other than working up the corporate ladder - just like any other job.

 

[otto]

Don't Forget Meredith Kercher this Time

"The impending retrial for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher fills many court-watchers with dread, myself included. Details of the crime are horrific enough. But during the lengthy court processes which we have already witnessed, my discomfort was intensified by the obsession with Amanda Knox ...

Knox is not the first female defendant to attract attention in this way. The media, and therefore the public at large, are fascinated by a woman who transgresses, particularly if they kill. Myra Hindley remains the supreme example – "the most evil woman in Britain" – who was a hate figure from her arrest in 1965 to her death in 2002 ...

When the Italian prosecutors again attempt to secure a conviction for that tragic murder in Perugia we will have to get used to seeing Knox’s face on a daily basis once more. But let’s ensure that Meredith remains at forefront of all our minds."

By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent
7:00AM BST 03 Apr 2013
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wo...l-dont-forget-Meredith-Kercher-this-time.html

 

[Malkmus]

I think this is another situation where the different legal systems in Italy and the US result in misunderstandings about whether doing the job of prosecutor furthers a career .

In the US, where prosecutors are elected, the prosecutor seems to almost have a conflict of interest when deciding to proceed with a case. That is, if the prosecutor decides to try a case and fails, that could reflect poorly on the prosecutor. If it happens a couple of times, that prosecutor could be out of a job because he/she will not be re-elected. Conversely, if a prosecutor is repeatedly successful, particularly with high profile cases, that almost always furthers his/her career. In the US, to say that a prosecutor made decisions on the basis of furthering a career makes perfect sense.

In countries like Italy, prosecutors are civil servants that are hired to do the job. Doing a good job or a poor job has very little to do with furthering a career other than working up the corporate ladder - just like any other job.

He was recently promoted. He cares about furthering his career.

 

[Malkmus]

Don't Forget Meredith Kercher this Time

"The impending retrial for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher fills many court-watchers with dread, myself included. Details of the crime are horrific enough. But during the lengthy court processes which we have already witnessed, my discomfort was intensified by the obsession with Amanda Knox ...

Knox is not the first female defendant to attract attention in this way. The media, and therefore the public at large, are fascinated by a woman who transgresses, particularly if they kill. Myra Hindley remains the supreme example – "the most evil woman in Britain" – who was a hate figure from her arrest in 1965 to her death in 2002 ...

When the Italian prosecutors again attempt to secure a conviction for that tragic murder in Perugia we will have to get used to seeing Knox’s face on a daily basis once more. But let’s ensure that Meredith remains at forefront of all our minds."

By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent
7:00AM BST 03 Apr 2013
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wo...l-dont-forget-Meredith-Kercher-this-time.html

I have to agree with this. I would prefer the media didn't plaster Amanda's face on every article. However, I understand it has a lot to do with the fact that it is going to be her trial, so of course she has to be pictured in the articles. It would be odd otherwise. But I think both Meredith and Raf could get shown more.

 

[otto]

He was recently promoted. He cares about furthering his career.

Really? After all the remarks that I've read here about one of the trial prosecutors, I would have expected that he should be fired. I guess not everything that has been said about him can be true.