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

[SMK]

the book smk refers to is talking about when mignini visited amanda in prison in december 2007... follain does say her attorneys were present. but i can't ascertain whether or not this interview/interrogation was recorded in any way. if it wasn't, how did follain re-construct the conversation?

BBM - At one point Mignini states that he wants it noted on the record that Amanda has been crying for 10 minutes and that everyone can hear her. (ETA: Her attorney interjects that Amanda is not crying.) (Follain, A Death in Italy ; pp 213-16)

Thus, it would seem that there must have been a transcript for Follain to work from, as well as interviews (to know for instance that Mignini felt "stunned" by Amanda's response.)

 

[SMK]

For Mignini - according to Follain, and we must assume that Follain interviewed Mignini or he would not be within his rights to set any such down in his book - it was the fact that Amanda kept crying and covering her ears with her hands - in the presence of Mignini and her own attorneys - which made him sure she had been witness to murder and traumatized by it, and attempting to repress the memory of it.

p. 216: Follain, A Death in Italy:

The gesture meant she was trying to blot out the screams she really had heard , he was sure of that. She was desperate to forget what had happened at the cottage - she was trying to deny to herself that it ever happened - but it kept coming back to her and her tears were tears of frustration.

How could Amanda say that the possibility that she was at the cottage and hear Meredith's screams as someone killed her 'could be true'? Simply admitting this was a confession that she had been at the scene of the crime.

 

[SMK]

BBM - At one point Mignini states that he wants it noted on the record that Amanda has been crying for 10 minutes and that everyone can hear her. (ETA: Her attorney interjects that Amanda is not crying.) (Follain, A Death in Italy ; pp 213-16)

Thus, it would seem that there must have been a transcript for Follain to work from, as well as interviews (to know for instance that Mignini felt "stunned" by Amanda's response.)

Just bringing my quote forward because I find the eta part very bewildering (BBM)......:waitasec:

 

[Amber29]

How would naming PL let her remain innocent?

It doesn't change the fact that her account in the statement was not true. Couple that with the fact that the statement elaborated a theory that LE were angling at, and the conclusion is that this was a coerced statement that in all probability was not properly understood by either side.

AK did not confess to anything in her statement except being in the cottage while someone else killed Meredith. It was a false accusation not a confession

In her eyes she was still innocent in the statement she made hence she was shocked when they later placed her under arrest.

In the Mignini/AK/lawyers interrogation that is being talked about it is that point in it that Amanda starts crying and doesn't answer anymore questions. That is what added to Mignini thoughts about it. He didn't understand why at that point she would react that way.

 

[quesarita]

Just bringing my quote forward because I find the eta part very bewildering (BBM)......:waitasec:

That is bewildering. Her attorney who was present says she is NOT crying? MIgnini says she has been crying for 10 minutes and the attorney says no, she is not crying?

 

[SMK]

That is bewildering. Her attorney who was present says she is NOT crying? MIgnini says she has been crying for 10 minutes and the attorney says no, she is not crying?

p 215: Follain, A Death in Italy

Mignini noted aloud , for the second time, that Amanda was crying. . . . You're crying again a long time, I mention it for the record, I mention it for the record, you've been crying for ten minutes

[...]

Ghirga, addressing Mignini: "We request a suspension.....she's calm, you say she's crying but it doesn't seem so to us."

 

[Katody]

AK did not confess to anything in her statement except being in the cottage while someone else killed Meredith. It was a false accusation not a confession

In her eyes she was still innocent in the statement she made hence she was shocked when they later placed her under arrest.

In the Mignini/AK/lawyers interrogation that is being talked about it is that point in it that Amanda starts crying and doesn't answer anymore questions. That is what added to Mignini thoughts about it. He didn't understand why at that point she would react that way.

I don't think he didn't. It's obvious for anyone with a bit of empathy and emotional intelligence. <modsnip>.

 

[SMK]

I don't think he didn't. It's obvious for anyone with a bit of empathy and emotional intelligence. <modsnip>.

Taken from my post upthread; it would seem Mignini suspected Amanda as having been a traumatized witness to the murder, and the reasons for the prosecutor thinking this are amply given:

For Mignini - according to Follain, and we must assume that Follain interviewed Mignini or he would not be within his rights to set any such down in his book - it was the fact that Amanda kept crying and covering her ears with her hands - in the presence of Mignini and her own attorneys - which made him sure she had been witness to murder and traumatized by it, and attempting to repress the memory of it.

p. 216: Follain, A Death in Italy:

"The gesture meant she was trying to blot out the screams she really had heard , he was sure of that. She was desperate to forget what had happened at the cottage - she was trying to deny to herself that it ever happened - but it kept coming back to her and her tears were tears of frustration. "

"How could Amanda say that the possibility that she was at the cottage and hear Meredith's screams as someone killed her 'could be true'? Simply admitting this was a confession that she had been at the scene of the crime."

 

[SMK]

<modsnip> Amanda has opened a Facebook page, if anyone wants to ask to be added as a friend (of course I don't dare to at this point, but it might be interesting just to read there ):

https://www.facebook.com/amanda.knox.397

 

[Katody]

Taken from my post upthread; it would seem Mignini suspected Amanda as having been a traumatized witness to the murder, and the reasons for the prosecutor thinking this are amply given:

For Mignini - according to Follain, and we must assume that Follain interviewed Mignini or he would not be within his rights to set any such down in his book - it was the fact that Amanda kept crying and covering her ears with her hands - in the presence of Mignini and her own attorneys - which made him sure she had been witness to murder and traumatized by it, and attempting to repress the memory of it.

p. 216: Follain, A Death in Italy:

"The gesture meant she was trying to blot out the screams she really had heard , he was sure of that. She was desperate to forget what had happened at the cottage - she was trying to deny to herself that it ever happened - but it kept coming back to her and her tears were tears of frustration. "

"How could Amanda say that the possibility that she was at the cottage and hear Meredith's screams as someone killed her 'could be true'? Simply admitting this was a confession that she had been at the scene of the crime."

I doubt Mignini were still truly convinced of her guilt by the time of December questioning. Mignini presented himself many times as a person who tells lies easily, if clumsily.

 

[SMK]

I doubt Mignini were still truly convinced of her guilt by the time of December questioning. Mignini presented himself many times as a person who tells lies easily, if clumsily.

If he wasn't convinced of her guilt, why would he want to pretend he was? Is he that without ethics or reason?

 

[Katody]

If he wasn't convinced of her guilt, why would he want to pretend he was? Is he that without ethics or reason?

I think he is without ethics. There is self-serving reason in his actions.

 

[SMK]

I think he is without ethics. There is self-serving reason in his actions.

Well, if what you are talking about is his wanting to compensate for the Monster of Florence scandal:

Just assuming for argument's sake that this is true, I would think it much more likely that Mignini, a man of strong ethics and reason (albeit outdated ethics in the eyes of many) would become deluded into thinking that Knox was a not-so-obvious murderer/criminal whom his powers of discernment had penetrated. He would be certain of her guilt in his own mind, even if he were greatly deluded or had tricked himself into believing this. I am speaking hypothetically here.

To simply slap false charges on someone to save face is the lowest, creepiest, and most subhuman form of behavior which exists. If Mignini were such a man, someone would have assassinated him by now. MOO:moo:

 

[Katody]

Well, if what you are talking about is his wanting to compensate for the Monster of Florence scandal

Actually, I think he was covering for the incompetence of the authorities and his own in Kercher investigation. The incompetence verging on criminality, taking into account the interrogation night. The fact that his backside was already on fire because of the criminal charges on him in Florence was just an added bonus.

 

[aa9511]

She did put herself at the scene. :facepalm:

As I show below, you have quoted only a part of my post. I have copied my entire post below, and then bolded the section you included in your post, to the exclusion of the whole rest of the post:

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.

I think I explained in the entirety my post what I thought about why placing herself "at the scene" with Rudy was quite different from placing herself "at the scene" with Patrick. In short, because the one with Rudy would have been the truth, and thus a confession, and the one with Patrick was a complete fabrication/lie/made-up story. So I don't think it is accurate to compare her placing herself at the scene in the two very different situations.

 

[aa9511]

That would make more sense if she had flown home on a first plane to Seattle. Just like the other students.

Waiting in Perugia for the cops to find something on her makes zero sense if she's guilty.

I explained my view of this in a prior post upthread.

What I said was, from a guilty perspective, until she was arrested and thus knew the s*** had hit the fan already, she was trying to stay and be available to police because she knew she knew she would be "on the radar" of the police since she was a roomate. And thus they would question her, regardless. As a guilty person who knew she was guilty (from guilty perspective), making herself unavailable to police would make her look more suspicious (from her perspective). We have seen examples of this in countless murder cases which involve husband/wife and close relatives. They often times stay at "help out" police instead of fleeing, which would make them look guilty.

Amanda would probably not have looked guilty if she had just left, but in her own mind, from her perspective, knowing she was guilty - I think she thought it would make her look guilty/raise suspicions if she left. MOO.

So, to me, it actually makes complete sense why she would stay and be available to the police.

 

[aa9511]

All the other students jumped on planes immediately. There was no gain for a guilty person to hang around the police.

Exactly, all the other students left immediately. They had no reason to stay and look innocent for the police. Amanda, from guilty perspective, did.

If I think about this like I just participated in a horrible, gruesome murder, and then I up and the next day buy a plane ticket back home to get away....how will that look to the police? Especially when I am already on the radar because I am a roomate and friend. (Rudy was not on the radar- he could have fled and no one around Meredith would have noticed until the police connected the dots and connected him to the crime). Amanda and Raffaele, especially Amanda, were in a different position because they actually knew Meredith and for Amanda especially being the next-door rommate. Would I want to do something to draw attention to me, or would I want to cooperate with them and make it look like I have nothing to hide?

Amanda, at that time, was trying to "play the part," IMO. Trying to make it look to police like she was totally normal, nothing out-of-the-ordinary there.

Up until the day of that fateful interrogation, she thought it was working.

 

[aa9511]

There's one small problem. She was no relative. And relatives have nowhere to go, they have no choice but to stick around.

For a student abroad it is natural and not suspicious at all to return home after such traumatic event. As other students demonstrated. Also, ss Guede demonstrated, natural thing for a guilty person was to skip town and skip the country.


One thing that seems to be missing from your explanation:
Why would she confess to anything at all? Why not just say Raffaele must be confused or mistaken? Why change the story suddenly? And not just her, why would Raffaele change his story?

Guede sticks to his "date" SOGDI story for years. And he is guilty.

bbm

Ah, yes I agree. But Amanda, guilty perspective, was viewing herself as a guilty person. So she was viewing herself through that prism. This is where the problem comes in. She was thinking of herself like a guilty person, when she should have been thinking of herself like an innocent person, she would have thus made more "normal" decisions.

I don't know how to explain it exactly in words. To us, (let's say "we" are the people around this case the day after the murder), it would not have seemed strange if she had left after the intial compulsory questioning by the police of those around Meredith. But to Amanda, who knew she was guilty, she thought that if she did that, it would draw attention and suspicion to her. Therefore, there is a divide between what we think she should have thought to do, and what she actually thought she should do. Because she was viewing herself form a guilty perspective, and "we" were viewing her from the innocent perspective.

Re; second part of your post. That is also something we think she should have done, coming from innocent perspective. But again, she was viewing herself as guilty, and from a guilty persepective. That is why there is the divide, again. Between what would seem "normal," and what she actually did.

 

[SMK]

Exactly, all the other students left immediately. They had no reason to stay and look innocent for the police. Amanda, from guilty perspective, did.

If I think about this like I just participated in a horrible, gruesome murder, and then I up and the next day buy a plane ticket back home to get away....how will that look to the police? Especially when I am already on the radar because I am a roomate and friend. (Rudy was not on the radar- he could have fled and no one around Meredith would have noticed until the police connected the dots and connected him to the crime). Amanda and Raffaele, especially Amanda, were in a different position because they actually knew Meredith and for Amanda especially being the next-door rommate. Would I want to do something to draw attention to me, or would I want to cooperate with them and make it look like I have nothing to hide?

Amanda, at that time, was trying to "play the part," IMO. Trying to make it look to police like she was totally normal, nothing out-of-the-ordinary there.

Up until the day of that fateful interrogation, she thought it was working.

I was posting you a link of this review on how Knox's book might lead to trouble for her, by sex crimes specialist Linda Fairstein, as I was positive she had made a reference to how staying in Perugia made Knox look more guilty, not less---but that reference seems to have vanished????

Really driving me crazy, as I KNOW when I first read the piece she made claim about Knox going to Germany would have appeared more innocent. Maybe someone told her Amanda wasn't allowed to leave and she deleted? Any way, here is the piece:

http://www.bookish.com/articles/amanda-knox-memoir-may-be-evidence-against-her

 

[aa9511]

p 215: Follain, A Death in Italy

Maybe it was like one of those whimpering cries, and so defense thought they couldn't really "prove" she was crying? Like, oh, she's actually just whimpering/something-else-other-than-crying.