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

[SMK]

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.

Either that, or she had stopped and so they then wanted that to be noted. Follain did say she tried to bring the crying under control.

But somewhere in pp 213-16, Mignini says the crying was loud enough to be heard by all.

p 215:

"Mignini: I mention it for the record because I saw the tears, she cried, and we could all hear her. "

 

[Katody]

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.

Well, no. I wrote it from the guilty perspective. Why would a guilty person do this? Makes zero sense to me. I don't see any explanation in your previous posts.

 

[Katody]

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.

Guede was guilty and skipped the country.

Amanda was no relative. Had no obligation to stick around to play concerned. It makes no sense in the guilt scenario, especially when she felt the cops are getting more and more aggressive (as the recorded phone conversations indicate).

But I'm much more interested in the theory explaining why they dropped their alibis out of nowhere. Guede who is guilty sticks to his lousy "date" story for years, never lowered his guard.

 

[SMK]

Guede was guilty and skipped the country.

Amanda was no relative. Had no obligation to stick around to play concerned. It makes no sense in the guilt scenario, especially when she felt the cops are getting more and more aggressive (as the recorded phone conversations indicate).

But I'm much more interested in the theory explaining why they dropped their alibis out of nowhere. Guede who is guilty sticks to his lousy "date" story for years, never lowered his guard.

BBM - I understand that Guede - guilty without a doubt - has always clung to his ridiculous date-with-Meredith story.

I also understand that the IIP theory is that PLE invited RS and AK to imagine other scenarios, lying to them that there was "hard evidence" that Knox was at the murder scene, and making them doubt their own senses (which they themselves made easier with all their pot smoking).

Why did someone like Ryan Ferguson (innocent) - who was treated disgracefully by police - never once waver? He, an inexperienced 19 year old who had been very drunk the night of the murder, would simply not admit that he was at the crime scene.

He refused - although his friend and partner on the night of the murder, had not only refused to give him an alibi, but had placed him in the role of the murderer - to "admit to something I know I didn't do." When pushed and pushed by the police about "inconsistencies", he would simply say, "I don't know, but I know I was not involved with this". When the police asked why they should believe him, the teen would quietly say, "I've told you the truth."

Knox and Sollecito, both older than Ryan, changed their stories and one accused an innocent man (something Ferguson might have also done, but to his honor, did not. ). I guess they simply do not cut the same sympathetic profile as RF did.

 

[aa9511]

Well, no. I wrote it from the guilty perspective. Why would a guilty person do this? Makes zero sense to me. I don't see any explanation in your previous posts.

You wrote from the guilty perspective of an outsider. Not from the guilty perspective of the person who actually committed the murder - two totally different things!!!

That is exactly the problem. What we think she should have done (from outsider guilty view) to make herself look innocent, is not what she actually did. Because she had the insider perspective of being the one who actually committed the crime, looking at it from that prism from an "insider," and her view of how other people would view the things she did was thus totally skewed.

I cannot explain it in words.

 

[SMK]

You wrote from the guilty perspective of an outsider. Not from the guilty perspective of the person who actually committed the murder - two totally different things!!!

That is exactly the problem. What we think she should have done (from outsider guilty view) to make herself look innocent, is not what she actually did. Because she had the insider perspective of being the one who actually committed the crime, looking at it from that prism from an "insider," and her view of how other people would view the things she did was thus totally skewed.

I cannot explain it in words.

I think what you mean to say is that Knox being culpable, tried to imagine what an innocent would act like: Her behavior was that of a guilty-person-feigning innocence; hence, it was at a once remove, and not spontaneous. Kind of like a cold person feigning warmth: It comes off at a degree removed from the actual, because it does not arise internally; it is show. It also lacks awareness of how others perceive the behavior, and of hidden pitfalls (such as staying in Perugia and going to the station with Raffaele).

 

[Amber29]

Guede was guilty and skipped the country.

Amanda was no relative. Had no obligation to stick around to play concerned. It makes no sense in the guilt scenario, especially when she felt the cops are getting more and more aggressive (as the recorded phone conversations indicate).

But I'm much more interested in the theory explaining why they dropped their alibis out of nowhere. Guede who is guilty sticks to his lousy "date" story for years, never lowered his guard.

Why is it anyone's job to explain why RS told the cops he had "told a load of rubbish".
We've been over the amount of time he was being questioned when he says this many times. We even have RS now years later trying to add hours onto his interrogation in a interview. Creating his own timeline of when they arrived at the station that night.

Why do you think he feels he needs to do this?

 

[aa9511]

Guede was guilty and skipped the country.

Amanda was no relative. Had no obligation to stick around to play concerned. It makes no sense in the guilt scenario, especially when she felt the cops are getting more and more aggressive (as the recorded phone conversations indicate).

But I'm much more interested in the theory explaining why they dropped their alibis out of nowhere. Guede who is guilty sticks to his lousy "date" story for years, never lowered his guard.

Guede was not "on the radar" in the beginning. I have repeated this so many times that I've lost count by now. Nobody on Day 1 thought, oh, where is that person named Rudy Guede? He was completely off the radar.

Amanda was not a relative, but was a roommate and thus knew she would be questioned by police. Also, many people around Meredith knew of Amanda, first of all their other roommates. Her absence/non-absence, would be noticed by them. This was not the case for Rudy. Again, repeating myself.

They dropped their alibis because once their story started cracking they needed to come up with new stories!

 

[aa9511]

I think what you mean to say is that Knox being culpable, tried to imagine what an innocent would act like: Her behavior was that of a guilty-person-feigning innocence; hence, it was at a once remove, and not spontaneous. Kind of like a cold person feigning warmth: It comes off at a degree removed from the actual, because it does not arise internally; it is show. It also lacks awareness of how others perceive the behavior, and of hidden pitfalls (such as staying in Perugia and going to the station with Raffaele).

Yes, that is part of it.

Also, she would have extra-sensivity to anything which could potentially help make her look guilty to others. And extra-sensitivity to doing things which would make her seem innocent. Thus, getting on a plane and taking off would not seem strange to us, but to her it did. Because she knew what she had done, and she was sensitive to how others would view this act of leaving. At the same time, staying and being available to police was, in her mind, something to do to make her seem innocent.

 

[Amber29]

Guede was not "on the radar" in the beginning. I have repeated this so many times that I've lost count by now. Nobody on Day 1 thought, oh, where is that person named Rudy Guede? He was completely off the radar.

Amanda was not a relative, but was a roommate and thus knew she would be questioned by police. Also, many people around Meredith knew of Amanda, first of all their other roommates. Her absence/non-absence, would be noticed by them. This was not the case for Rudy. Again, repeating myself.

They dropped their alibis because once their story started cracking they needed to come up with new stories!

Not to mention it's not like RG high tailed it immediately. He went out the night and danced all night. He then went out again the next night dancing.

I've always felt like they wanted to stay near the investigation. Not to mention I believe Amanda was told she couldn't leave. As the British girls didn't leave until after talking to the police either. Iirc.

 

[Katody]

Why did someone like Ryan Ferguson (innocent) - who was treated disgracefully by police - never once waver?

I don't know his case. Why do you ask?

 

[Katody]

You wrote from the guilty perspective of an outsider. Not from the guilty perspective of the person who actually committed the murder - two totally different things!!!

That is exactly the problem. What we think she should have done (from outsider guilty view) to make herself look innocent, is not what she actually did. Because she had the insider perspective of being the one who actually committed the crime, looking at it from that prism from an "insider," and her view of how other people would view the things she did was thus totally skewed.

I cannot explain it in words.

That I can see. I don't understand what you mean by "outsider".

I'm trying to understand why giving a single statement to the police and leaving the country (like the rest of the girls) would be bad in the guilt scenario. I can't myself see any negatives in it. You haven't pointed any, either.

Basically, what actually happened during those few days before the arrests doesn't support your guilt scenario logically.

You may claim it's possible that all of this happened because they were not acting reasonably at all, but in fact it weakens the guilt scenario even more.

First, it's expected that they would have kept alert and carefully stick to an alibi (like Guede did).

Second, if we acknowledge they instead acted unreasonably, it doesn't support guilt scenario at all. It is much more probable innocent person would act unreasonably, not carefully, having nothing to fear.

 

[Katody]

They dropped their alibis because once their story started cracking they needed to come up with new stories!

What do you mean by this? I don't think their story was contradicted by anything.

 

[SMK]

I don't know his case. Why do you ask?

Oh, I thought because Amanda makes much of his case, and it is quite famous, you did know of it.

In any event, you don't really have to know the case to get the gist of my rhetorical questions.

 

[Katody]

Oh, I thought because Amanda makes much of his case, and it is quite famous, you did know of it.

In any event, you don't really have to know the case to get the gist of my rhetorical questions.

I'm not good at reading rhetorical questions. I prefer straightforward.
You were not suggesting false confessions do not exist? Were you?

 

[SMK]

That I can see. I don't understand what you mean by "outsider".

I'm trying to understand why giving a single statement to the police and leaving the country (like the rest of the girls) would be bad in the guilt scenario. I can't myself see any negatives in it. You haven't pointed any, either.

Basically, what actually happened during those few days before the arrests doesn't support your guilt scenario logically.

You may claim it's possible that all of this happened because they were not acting reasonably at all, but in fact it weakens the guilt scenario even more.

First, it's expected that they would have kept alert and carefully stick to an alibi (like Guede did).

Second, if we acknowledge they instead acted unreasonably, it doesn't support guilt scenario at all. It is much more probable innocent person would act unreasonably, not carefully, having nothing to fear.

It is true that this "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" explanation can be applied in this case. I recall reading a true crime case in which one of the suspects, acting rashly and as though she had nothing to hide, had such behavior explained by her attorney as "consciousness of innocence".

Of course, Guede out dancing in discos could also be explained as "consciousness of innocence".

 

[Amber29]

Well, if you want to come up with a coherent scenario of guilt, you need to have some explanation for this.

If you have none, your belief in guilt doesn't seem that well grounded in logic and reason.

Please don't cut my post off.

I asked you why you think RS has felt the need to add some 5 hours or whatever to this police visit. Changing the entire timeline of that evening.

IMO he did it to make it seem alot more reasonable why he changed his story.
I mean there's a huge difference in being questioned for under an hour and being questioned for 5 hours.

There's my answer I don't need to do any explaining of RSs statements when he can't even tell the truth now years later. He feels the need to embellish to make it sound believable.

 

[Katody]

Of course, Guede out dancing in discos could also be explained as "consciousness of innocence".

Not in the light of his own story that he left Meredith to die just moments before.

 

[Amber29]

I'm not good at reading rhetorical questions. I prefer straightforward.
You were not suggesting false confessions do not exist? Were you?

Of course false confessions exist but AK did not make a false confession.

 

[SMK]

I'm not good at reading rhetorical questions. I prefer straightforward.
You were not suggesting false confessions do not exist? Were you?

No - I was not suggesting false confessions do not exist. :slap::waiting:

Here is a dreadful case:

After 14 hours of interrogation in a small, windowless room, Kevin Fox simply gave up. He knew he hadn't sexually assaulted or murdered his 3-year-old daughter, but police had rejected his requests for a lawyer and told him they would arrange for inmates to rape him in jail, according to court records.

The distraught father later testified that detectives also screamed at him, showed him a picture of his daughter, bound and gagged with duct tape, and told him that his wife was planning to divorce him, the records show.

Fox finally agreed to a detective's hypothetical account of how his daughter, Riley, died in an accident, thinking investigators would realize that the phony details didn't match up with the evidence, his lawyer said. Instead, he remained in Will County jail for 8 months, released only after DNA evidence excluded him as a suspect. In May, another man was charged with the crime.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...20100711_1_confess-dna-evidence-interrogation