Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#10

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #561
You make it seem like it was a very deliberate, calculated act.

I can't help thinking that if she was so calculating and so much in control she would have just said they are mistaken and she would just go home (she wasn't under arrest after all).
The next day she would have been on a plane to USA. Yet another day and the DNA and fingerprint results pointing to Guede are out, the case is closed.

It only seems very deliberate and calculated because I had to piece-meal my answer (is that the correct term?) and break it down into bit by bit in order to convey the logic. Because I realize that what I personally see as a very obvious thing, is not so obvious to others. And so when I try to explain it how I see it, I have to do it very deliberately and carefully and piece by piece - that is why it appears that way.
 
  • #562
Yes, I understand your point. Leaving Rudy's traces = "the burglar." So why didn't she just name this "burglar"?

Naming Rudy would mean she had to put herself at the scene of the crime. Otherwise, how would she know he was the one who did it? Or she could have said something like, "Rudy came over to Raffaele's house in a panic and told us what he had done." But then how would she explain not calling police or why they didn't call for help when they found out what Rudy had done? Also, she would have to answer the obvious of, why did Rudy come to you and Raffaele? There would be many lies she would have to come up with to make that story work. The only way she could have said Rudy did it, is if she was somehow there at the house.

Putting herself at the scene of the crime with Rudy would have been a true confession (guilty perspective), whether wholly or partially.

Amanda, from the gulty persepective - why would she confess?

Again, like I said earlier, if she had confessed to something, we would not be in this same position discussing this case like we are.

It is because she didn't confess, that we have a trial.

I think what you're trying to say is that why didn't Amanda name Rudy and then put all the blame on him? In that scenario, she would be at the scene, but blame it all on Rudy.

That would make sense for her to do that, looking at it many years later and knowing that Rudy was convicted and exactly which evidence police have and don't have.....Amanda at that time, she did not know what police would uncover. Maybe she even thought Rudy would run away and they would never catch him, in which case why would she confess if police were not able to catch Rudy, there was no chance the truth of what happened that night would ever be revealed? (t would all remain a big unsolved mystery. Maybe she thought they wouldn't be able to match anything to Rudy. Because, like others have said, he had no reason to be in the house that night and he would not be in any group interrogated or questioned by the police. The people who would be questioned were those close to Meredith and who had known contact with Meredith in the days around her murder. If police were not able to match any of the DNA to Rudy, why would he ever be questioned?

Maybe she and Raffaele thought it would remain a big mystery of who did it? They never catch Rudy. They never match any of the DNA to Rudy.

The reason she left signs of Rudy was not so police catch Rudy - it was to make them believe in "a burglar." Just a burglar. Some strange, random guy.

Maybe she thought, by the time they catch Rudy, I will be back in the U.S., so they cannot catch me there. Maybe she thought if they ever traced back to Rudy and caught him, it didn't matter because by that time she would be gone and safe at home. Safe in the U.S., how could they make her come back to Italy. At least she will then be across the ocean, and with her family.

Even as I am writing this, it is making more and more sense to me. :)

It makes less and less sense to me! Why did she not leave Italy then? Her actions are those of someone who "knows" they are innocent of this crime and therefore cannot understand that she is in danger of suspicion or arrest.
 
  • #563
It only seems very deliberate and calculated because I had to piece-meal my answer (is that the correct term?) and break it down into bit by bit in order to convey the logic. Because I realize that what I personally see as a very obvious thing, is not so obvious to others. And so when I try to explain it how I see it, I have to do it very deliberately and carefully and piece by piece - that is why it appears that way.

I understand you mean she named Lumumba because she buckled under pressure, not out of calculated malice. Which tells us nothing because it's entirely possible for an innocent person to do this. In fact giving up information that has nothing to do with the real events is what innocent people do when they buckle.
 
  • #564
It makes less and less sense to me! Why did she not leave Italy then? Her actions are those of someone who "knows" they are innocent of this crime and therefore cannot understand that she is in danger of suspicion or arrest.



Do you not find it strange that the others left because they were afraid? Someone had just been murdered in their home and they had no idea who did it or why.

Amanda, being so young, so far from home, in a country where she couldn't speak the language or communicate without an interpreter but somehow understood her customers at the bar...just didn't fear the situation like the others did.
 
  • #565
Yes, I understand your point. Leaving Rudy's traces = "the burglar." So why didn't she just name this "burglar"?

Naming Rudy would mean she had to put herself at the scene of the crime. Otherwise, how would she know he was the one who did it? Or she could have said something like, "Rudy came over to Raffaele's house in a panic and told us what he had done." But then how would she explain not calling police or why they didn't call for help when they found out what Rudy had done? Also, she would have to answer the obvious of, why did Rudy come to you and Raffaele? There would be many lies she would have to come up with to make that story work. The only way she could have said Rudy did it, is if she was somehow there at the house.<snipped>

Trying to understand the logic here. She didn't want to name Rudy because that would put her at the cottage -- but put herself at the cottage when she named Lumumba? How does that work?
 
  • #566
Do you not find it strange that the others left because they were afraid? Someone had just been murdered in their home and they had no idea who did it or why.

Amanda, being so young, so far from home, in a country where she couldn't speak the language or communicate without an interpreter but somehow understood her customers at the bar...just didn't fear the situation like the others did.

I think if she were guilty she would board first plane to Seattle and wait safely at home for the cops to pin Guede on the multitude of evidence that he left.

She made a mistake of innocent, trusting person.
 
  • #567
And yet Lumumba's attorney - among others - and Mignini the original prosecutor, and now Crini the appeal prosecutor, all claim that Knox accused Lumumba to sidetrack the investigation and to divert attention away from herself. It didn't work, obviously, but many - including Patrick himself and his legal team - are convinced this was her motive.

That argument doesn't really make much sense since it would have the effect of focussing attention on her, not diverting it.

If she really was there, and wanted to divert attention from her role, then she would have been accusing RG, not PL. The "diverting attention" argument would only hold up if they could already show that she was there, but that is not what happened. They claim that she "spontaneously" did this statement. How can you be "diverting attention" from yourself if you are implicating yourself for no reason, and implicating some random person as well?

There is something hugely fishy about all of this "statement".
 
  • #568
I recall in the very beginning of this case, in the days before Lumumba's arrest, it was reported that a hair having African characteristics was found at the scene and that police were looking for an African Man. Anyone else recall this? Was this a fact?

I was reading a summary of Amanda's appeal and noted that hair formations were found under Meredith's fingernails which were never tested for mitochondrial dna. The defense asserts that the hair came from the attacker.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Appeal.html#anchor_149

I know that a 5 cm dark brown hair formation was found on the broken window and no further testing was done after an initial exam.

Where was the African hair found?
 
  • #569
Do you not find it strange that the others left because they were afraid? Someone had just been murdered in their home and they had no idea who did it or why.

Amanda, being so young, so far from home, in a country where she couldn't speak the language or communicate without an interpreter but somehow understood her customers at the bar...just didn't fear the situation like the others did.

I don't know that I find it strange, considering how many people have said she was slightly "off" or odd (consistently, not just after the murder). I don't have a sense of her personality that I trust because there's a lot of disinformation about her (devil, witch, etc), but possibly she was a little excited to find herself in a position to speak to the police about a heinous crime - not excited because she was a part of the crime but involved in the investigation, after the fact.
 
  • #570
It makes less and less sense to me! Why did she not leave Italy then? Her actions are those of someone who "knows" they are innocent of this crime and therefore cannot understand that she is in danger of suspicion or arrest.

Well, she was caught in a little pickle there, now wasn't she? Jump on a plane and take off - whoa....that would have sure drawn attention to her and sent little alarm bells ringing for the investigators. Tell on Rudy...whoa...how would she get out of that *beep-beep* when all he$$ broke lose after her confession? Ding-dong, ding-dong, the clock is ticking....what's she gonna do, what's she gonna do?
 
  • #571
I recall in the very beginning of this case, in the days before Lumumba's arrest, it was reported that a hair having African characteristics was found at the scene and that police were looking for an African Man. Anyone else recall this? Was this a fact?

I was reading a summary of Amanda's appeal and noted that hair formations were found under Meredith's fingernails which were never tested for mitochondrial dna. The defense asserts that the hair came from the attacker.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Appeal.html#anchor_149

I know that a 5 cm dark brown hair formation was found on the broken window and no further testing was done after an initial exam.

Where was the African hair found?

i can't quote what i've found b/c it's on the IIP blog, but the 4th paragraph down talks about the hair you refer to: http://www.injusticeinperugia.com/InjusticeInPerugia.html

also, the link towards the bottom, "The Accused" by Sarah Horne, states the african hair was found in MK's hand... http://www.friendsofamanda.org/articles.html
 
  • #572
Trying to understand the logic here. She didn't want to name Rudy because that would put her at the cottage -- but put herself at the cottage when she named Lumumba? How does that work?

Well that post was kind of a continuation of my first long post on this matter which I am not going to repeat, so you are welcome to read it upthread. I explained my interpretation of your question in my first post regarding this matter, I think it's just on the previous page.
 
  • #573
That argument doesn't really make much sense since it would have the effect of focussing attention on her, not diverting it.

If she really was there, and wanted to divert attention from her role, then she would have been accusing RG, not PL. The "diverting attention" argument would only hold up if they could already show that she was there, but that is not what happened. They claim that she "spontaneously" did this statement. How can you be "diverting attention" from yourself if you are implicating yourself for no reason, and implicating some random person as well?

There is something hugely fishy about all of this "statement".

Please explain to me how she was going to name a total "stranger" who did it, without having to admit she was there at the time? Which would be the truth, in guilty scenario. So how that is "diverting attention" from her, I do not understand.

Name Rudy, name Patrick, both requred her to put herself at the scene. Would she place herself with the truth (Rudy) and open up that whole bag of worms? Or would she place herself with the lie (Patrick) who could not reveal anything about what happened that night?

I feel like there is difficulty to understand this because we know everything that resulted and everything which happened after that. It's difficult to "erase" that from the mind.
 
  • #574
I feel like there is difficulty to understand this because we know everything that resulted and everything which happened after that. It's difficult to "erase" that from the mind.

I don&#8217;t think so.

The involvement of Guede was obvious for persons who were at the scene. They will known it's certain after the analysis of the traces. In this case such a person won&#8217;t incriminate Lumumba, because it will be an obvious lie. That&#8217;s independent from the results and everything which happened after that.

But one thing is certain. It's not an incriminating element. It's at least neutral, i think it's exonerating.
 
  • #575
That argument doesn't really make much sense since it would have the effect of focussing attention on her, not diverting it.

If she really was there, and wanted to divert attention from her role, then she would have been accusing RG, not PL. The "diverting attention" argument would only hold up if they could already show that she was there, but that is not what happened. They claim that she "spontaneously" did this statement. How can you be "diverting attention" from yourself if you are implicating yourself for no reason, and implicating some random person as well?

There is something hugely fishy about all of this "statement".
From what I understand, the police told her they had "hard evidence" of her at the scene.

This led to her naming Patrick (after the texts were found).

When Mignini later asked her, why she named Patrick (in the presence of her attorneys) she told him, "Because it could have been true" which stunned him.
 
  • #576
Whether I view Knox as guilty or innocent, the accusation of Patrick is always strange.

If she is innocent, it makes no sense to place herself at the scene if she could have maintained that she was with Raffaele at his apt.(once she had done this, there was no chance of her returning to the U.S.).

If Raffaele had stopped saying she was with him, it still made no sense to place herself at a murder scene. She might have maintained that she never, ever that night set one foot anywhere near the cottage.

If she is guilty, it sill makes no sense.

Her telling Mignini that she had met Patrick at the basketball courts, and that he wanted Meredith, and they went to the cottage for the purpose of him seducing Meredith, is too close to the sexual crime which took place. (that Amanda had brought a black man to the cottage, who was sexually interested in Meredith, and that the seduction had escalated to murder. )

Once Guede had been determined to be the perpetrator, and Knox had told Mignini that the scenario with Patrick "could have been true", it was a short step to his replacing Lumumba with Guede. (I find it easy to replace Rudy at the basketball courts, and have him the one who is desiring Meredith. )

It more or less sealed her fate.

I wonder what the outcome would have been, if she had stuck to her story of being with Raffaele, calling him a liar when he changed his story, and never accussing PL or anyone.

ETA: In addition, it is easy to see how Mignini arrived at his theory:

In the 1960s when Jeffrey MacDonald was convicted of stabbing his wife and 2 daughters to death, police investigators arrived at this theory through his own story: That a band of hippes had broken in and killed his family. By plugging MacDonald himself in as the killer, and by having his wife screaming not at the hippies to stop stabbing her, but at her own husband, they arrived at the theory - supported by evidence - that MacDonald himself was the killer.

And this is what Mignini also did:

Amanda had placed herself at the basketball courts with a black man who wanted Meredith; had placed herself at the cottage with him after giving him entry into the villa, and as he murdered her.

And the insistence by the Postal Police that the robbery point of entry was staged, together with the lack of defensive wounds on Kercher, made him conclude that at some point Knox and Sollecito were themselves involved in the scenario (further bolstered by signs of a partial attempt at clean up). So in what sense did Mignini conclude something so very fantastic?
 
  • #577
I think it will be very easy for people who are not as immersed in this case as we are, to see the reasons behind her lies/false accusations/misunderstandings, however one wants to phrase it.

Before she was arrested, it is not a big mystery to me why she would stay there and not leave like the others did. She stayed there and made herself accessible, because she knew that as a roomate, she would be "on the radar" of the investigators. Rudy was not "on the radar." Rudy could flee and no one would notice until they connected the dots. Amanda was already on the radar. As a guilty person on the radar, do you stay and offer to "help" the police in any way you can? I believe we have seen many many examples of this in the case of things like husband/wife murder, close relative murder, etc..

It is also no mystery to me why she named Patrick, for reasons I have already stated in posts upthread.

I don't know, it is all very clear to me. Maybe I need different glasses. The cloudy ones.
 
  • #578
I think it will be very easy for people who are not as immersed in this case as we are, to see the reasons behind her lies/false accusations/misunderstandings, however one wants to phrase it.

Before she was arrested, it is not a big mystery to me why she would stay there and not leave like the others did. She stayed there and made herself accessible, because she knew that as a roomate, she would be "on the radar" of the investigators. Rudy was not "on the radar." Rudy could flee and no one would notice until they connected the dots. Amanda was already on the radar. As a guilty person on the radar, do you stay and offer to "help" the police in any way you can? I believe we have seen many many examples of this in the case of things like husband/wife murder, close relative murder, etc..

It is also no mystery to me why she named Patrick, for reasons I have already stated in posts upthread.

I don't know, it is all very clear to me. Maybe I need different glasses. The cloudy ones.
BBM - Excellent point made, and often missed.
 
  • #579
When Mignini later asked her, why she named Patrick (in the presence of her attorneys) she told him, "Because it could have been true" which stunned him.

hi smk... do you have a source for this alleged statement? did amanda's attorney -who you claim was present- verify she said this? was it mentioned in court?
 
  • #580
hi smk... do you have a source for this alleged statement? did amanda's attorney -who you claim was present- verify she said this? was it mentioned in court?
Well, I have never checked - I will admit to getting it out of one of the books. I can't see why the author would choose to portray Knox as saying this, or Mignini as stunned, and Knox's attorneys as very reluctant to allow her to speak further - if he had not gotten that information from Mignini himself or Mignini and her attorneys. Journalists hold to standards, fact-checking, etc. Or at least I assume they do. Burleigh seems to have been taken at her word for much. As have others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
130
Guests online
2,542
Total visitors
2,672

Forum statistics

Threads
632,676
Messages
18,630,316
Members
243,246
Latest member
Pollywaffle
Back
Top