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

[SMK]

So did Follain not say where he got this information from? I would think that should have been included in his book.

I only read Google books excerpts; I assume, as with other authors, he has a page which says, "I took my information from court transcripts, interviews, etc."

 

[quesarita]

I wondered about the "wiping away tears" as well. The only thing I can figure out is that either:

1. Follain sat in on the interrogation

OR

2. He interviewed Amanda's lawyers and asked them what they meant on the transcript, "You say she is crying, but to us, it doesn't seem so.", and they replied, "Well, she would calm down, wipe her tears away" etc.

Or
3. He was given the transcript and details by Mignini? Sorry, I know nothing about the book other than that passage you linked, but it seems IMO unlikely that Amanda's lawyers would try to set down for the record that she was not crying if what they meant was that she was wiping away tears.

 

[SMK]

Or
3. He was given the transcript and details by Mignini? Sorry, I know nothing about the book other than that passage you linked, but it seems IMO unlikely that Amanda's lawyers would try to set down for the record that she was not crying if what they meant was that she was wiping away tears.

True - I guess I meant they perhaps told him that she had teared up, wiped her tears, but was not sobbing as Mignini implied.

 

[quesarita]

This is funny. I went to Amazon to look at Follain's book and this is the 2nd review I read: "This book purports to be a factual account of this case. It gives that appearance by including the points of view of Amanda and her family.
But it's actually very biased, because the author over and over mentions little details that suggest that Amanda is guilty, WITHOUT also mentioning the evidence that debunked them!"
Which is exactly how I felt from reading that one passage.

 

[SMK]

This is funny. I went to Amazon to look at Follain's book and this is the 2nd review I read: "This book purports to be a factual account of this case. It gives that appearance by including the points of view of Amanda and her family.
But it's actually very biased, because the author over and over mentions little details that suggest that Amanda is guilty, WITHOUT also mentioning the evidence that debunked them!"
Which is exactly how I felt from reading that one passage.

I suppose he does do this; but as stated before, all of the various books - Follain, Dempsey, Burleigh - have been accused of being biased. Which is why in the end the evidence must speak.

Had the Postal Police not immediately viewed the burglary room as staged, things might have evolved differently. So it is vitally, of utmost importance, to determine if it WAS staged.

Imagine that you were at a murder mystery weekend, and playing a game of solving this murder. And I told you a young woman had been found dead in her bedroom, throat slashed, etc. And then I added, "Oh, the break in was STAGED: It is an INSIDE job". This is what the postal police did, which set all in motion the way it went from there.

 

[quesarita]

I suppose he does do this; but as stated before, all of the various books - Follain, Dempsey, Burleigh - have been accused of being biased. Which is why in the end the evidence must speak.

Had the Postal Police not immediately viewed the burglary room as staged, things might have evolved differently. So it is vitally, of utmost importance, to determine if it WAS staged.

Imagine that you were at a murder mystery weekend, and playing a game of solving this murder. And I told you a young woman had been found dead in her bedroom, throat slashed, etc. And then I added, "Oh, the break in was STAGED: It is an INSIDE job". This is what the postal police did, which set all in motion the way it went from there.

I understand. I agree first impressions can be important and I generally trust that police know their business, but also as I mentioned before, I know that a real break-in can look completely staged (one bedroom intact but with valuables taken, a second bedroom completely torn apart with nothing missing). We don't know the order of events in the cottage, so the break-in could have started one way and gone awry.

It's clear to me that the rock was thrown from outside (glass embedded in the interior shutter). One interesting thing - while many people comment on the difficulty of throwing the rock from the ground below, Raffaele in his book apparently says that there was a footpath level with the window and across from it from where it would have been much easier to throw the rock. At first I thought, oh nice! an explanation for the rock. My second thought was, hmm, was Raffaele the only one who could come up with that explanation because he was the one who threw the rock?:scared: and around I go again.

 

[SMK]

I understand. I agree first impressions can be important and I generally trust that police know their business, but also as I mentioned before, I know that a real break-in can look completely staged (one bedroom intact but with valuables taken, a second bedroom completely torn apart with nothing missing). We don't know the order of events in the cottage, so the break-in could have started one way and gone awry.

It's clear to me that the rock was thrown from outside (glass embedded in the interior shutter). One interesting thing - while many people comment on the difficulty of throwing the rock from the ground below, Raffaele in his book apparently says that there was a footpath level with the window and across from it from where it would have been much easier to throw the rock. At first I thought, oh nice! an explanation for the rock. My second thought was, hmm, was Raffaele the only one who could come up with that explanation because he was the one who threw the rock?:scared: and around I go again.

Yes, I agree: you usually trust police instinct , but there can be errors. I recall a case in the past, a little girl abducted and killed, and they were blaming the stepfather, as they said the break-in (supposedly how the abductor had entered via the basement) was staged. In the end, an expert proved it was not, and the stepfather (after serving prison time) was exonorrated when the real killer was found.

Having said that, I can imagine, though, when the Postal Police first spoke to the Carabinieri (they were supposed to have remarked, "This was no burglary! It was staged.") it must have certainly immediately made them look at the 2 who found the scene, with grave suspicion.

And indeed: Kuddos to you for being honest about your doubts (as it is true, Raffaelle's words can be taken either way). I do the same; around in circles, because all I really want is the truth, and not for a particular side to win....

 

[quesarita]

Yes, I agree: you usually trust police instinct , but there can be errors. I recall a case in the past, a little girl abducted and killed, and they were blaming the stepfather, as they said the break-in (supposedly how the abductor had entered via the basement) was staged. In the end, an expert proved it was not, and the stepfather (after serving prison time) was exonorrated when the real killer was found.

Having said that, I can imagine, though, when the Postal Police first spoke to the Carabinieri (they were supposed to have remarked, "This was no burglary! It was staged.") it must have certainly immediately made them look at the 2 who found the scene, with grave suspicion.

And indeed: Kuddos to you for being honest about your doubts (as it is true, Raffaelle's words can be taken either way). I do the same; around in circles, because all I really want is the truth, and not for a particular side to win....

I also just want the truth. Anyway, one more thing about the postal police comment ,"this was no burglary!" They must have been talking about Filomena's room only when they said that, because items were stolen from Meredith's room. If the broken window happened after the murder, then clearly it was staged to make it look like a break-in.
I just feel it could equally be true that Rudy broke in that way as he had recently done two other times (and was caught but not arrested WTF?!?!) and then the rape and murder were more of a crime of opportunity when Meredith came home.
Rudy knows.

 

[SMK]

I also just want the truth. Anyway, one more thing about the postal police comment ,"this was no burglary!" They must have been talking about Filomena's room only when they said that, because items were stolen from Meredith's room. If the broken window happened after the murder, then clearly it was staged to make it look like a break-in.
I just feel it could equally be true that Rudy broke in that way as he had recently done two other times (and was caught but not arrested WTF?!?!) and then the rape and murder were more of a crime of opportunity when Meredith came home.
Rudy knows.

Yes, the postal police said this about Filomena's room long before they discovered there was a dead body behind the locked door . Agreed: if the break-in was authentic and not actually staged, then it would be plausible that Guede (whom I would agree, seemed to not be held accountable for his criminal actions, for some strange reason) might fall back on habits in a pinch, and with the cottage empty for the holiday weekend.

The problem is there are two competing scenarios, which are mutually exclusive. Either the police came to a conclusion too quickly, and Knox and Sollecito are simply wrongfully suspected, arrested, and convicted - or the police are shrewder than we think, and the 2 did in fact have involvement with this crime (simulation, traces, making a record of innocence with the calls on Nov 2).

They cannot both be true. They are diametrically opposed scenarios. And this is what drives me crazy: I don't want to be wrong, to view the defendants wrongly - whether as innocents railroaded, or guilty but hiding in plain sight. I see both sides too clearly.

 

[TorisMom003]

I think the fact that the police had to go back to the cottage to gather more evidence 46 days after the fact tells a lot. It appears that the evidence they had previously collected did not point to the people (AK and RS) they wanted it to so they had to find some more. It's a shame that they didn't just follow the evidence instead of trying to make up stories as to what they think happened. If they had simply followed the evidence instead then the one true killer (RG) would be the only one in prison for the crime. Not to mention that it is doubtful that RG would be getting out of prison in the next year instead of spending the full 20 plus years behind bars.

MOO

 

[SMK]

I don't know the protocol for police forensic work or CSI. I know many people feel as you do, that when Guede came under the spotlight, the investigation ought to have been revamped.

I get so conflicted. My son took Amanda's book out of the library, and I have been reading it. On the one hand, it does seem to be the story of a guileless and inexperienced college girl who let herself get swept away by foreign police, submitting to them without question.

Then I wonder, what if this is essentially an identity given to Knox by PR people, book editors, and publicity experts? Something that she has come to be entangled with and now must submit to as she did the Perugian police? I wish Guede would be put under sodium penathol and hypnotized and forced to sing like a canary about what actually occurred that night....

An interesting aside: I keep abreast of Andrea Vogts freelance desk along with others, and she has an update for today, 12/30/13. She has released communications from the Italians in Perugia to the US Embassy re Amanda Knox beginning in 2007. So it would appear that American officials were kept updated on all developments occurring within this criminal investigation and were not in the dark about the proceedings.

 

[TorisMom003]

To leave the bra clasp, that they saw on the floor, at the cottage for 46 days is beyond comprehension for me. They knew what Meredith had on when she was killed, they took the bra itself (if I am not mistaken) but left the clasp? Then we have the jacket. Once they talked to the friends that last saw Meredith and found out what she was wearing, why wait 46 days to go and get that clothing to have it tested? So many things that appear to be done wrong. It just boggles my mind that someone can trust the evidence after seeing how it was collected.

MOO

 

[Monzoo]

I don't know the protocol for police forensic work or CSI. I know many people feel as you do, that when Guede came under the spotlight, the investigation ought to have been revamped.

I get so conflicted. My son took Amanda's book out of the library, and I have been reading it. On the one hand, it does seem to be the story of a guileless and inexperienced college girl who let herself get swept away by foreign police, submitting to them without question.

Then I wonder, what if this is essentially an identity given to Knox by PR people, book editors, and publicity experts? Something that she has come to be entangled with and now must submit to as she did the Perugian police? I wish Guede would be put under sodium penathol and hypnotized and forced to sing like a canary about what actually occurred that night....

An interesting aside: I keep abreast of Andrea Vogts freelance desk along with others, and she has an update for today, 12/30/13. She has released communications from the Italians in Perugia to the US Embassy re Amanda Knox beginning in 2007. So it would appear that American officials were kept updated on all developments occurring within this criminal investigation and were not in the dark about the proceedings.

Are you also worried that the impression of Amanda Knox as a "she-devil," "luciferina," etc. might also be the result of a pr campaign rather than a true reflection?

 

[Katody]

Yes, the postal police said this about Filomena's room long before they discovered there was a dead body behind the locked door . Agreed: if the break-in was authentic and not actually staged, then it would be plausible that Guede (whom I would agree, seemed to not be held accountable for his criminal actions, for some strange reason) might fall back on habits in a pinch, and with the cottage empty for the holiday weekend.

The police were suspicious because the climb seemed impossible to them. As we've seen in the TV reconstruction the climb is easy. The court saw another video demonstration by Raffaele's lawyer.

I wouldn't trust in the Perugian authorities opinions and judgment at all.

The problem is there are two competing scenarios, which are mutually exclusive. Either the police came to a conclusion too quickly, and Knox and Sollecito are simply wrongfully suspected, arrested, and convicted - or the police are shrewder than we think, and the 2 did in fact have involvement with this crime (simulation, traces, making a record of innocence with the calls on Nov 2).

They cannot both be true. They are diametrically opposed scenarios. And this is what drives me crazy: I don't want to be wrong, to view the defendants wrongly - whether as innocents railroaded, or guilty but hiding in plain sight. I see both sides too clearly.

There is only one scenario. The other one is not even a scenario but a naked assertion. It doesn't explain the evidence, it doesn't provide any answers. it doesn't try to fit the evidence into any coherent whole.

I'd love to see some attempt at explaining the nonexistence of traces in Meredith's room.
or the footprints, how do they fit the guilt scenario, how and when were they made?
or why would guilty Raffaele drop his alibi out of nowhere?
or why would the kitchen knife be used in murder?

Once we have something including all of these elements we can consider which scenario looks more plausible. Now there is simply nothing to compare at all.

 

[SMK]

To leave the bra clasp, that they saw on the floor, at the cottage for 46 days is beyond comprehension for me. They knew what Meredith had on when she was killed, they took the bra itself (if I am not mistaken) but left the clasp? Then we have the jacket. Once they talked to the friends that last saw Meredith and found out what she was wearing, why wait 46 days to go and get that clothing to have it tested? So many things that appear to be done wrong. It just boggles my mind that someone can trust the evidence after seeing how it was collected.

MOO

I am assuming that the place was cordoned off and thus they felt the evidence was "protected"? I really don't know what they were thinking of....

 

[SMK]

Are you also worried that the impression of Amanda Knox as a "she-devil," "luciferina," etc. might also be the result of a pr campaign rather than a true reflection?

Yes, of course.

 

[aa9511]

I understand. I agree first impressions can be important and I generally trust that police know their business, but also as I mentioned before, I know that a real break-in can look completely staged (one bedroom intact but with valuables taken, a second bedroom completely torn apart with nothing missing). We don't know the order of events in the cottage, so the break-in could have started one way and gone awry.

It's clear to me that the rock was thrown from outside (glass embedded in the interior shutter). One interesting thing - while many people comment on the difficulty of throwing the rock from the ground below, Raffaele in his book apparently says that there was a footpath level with the window and across from it from where it would have been much easier to throw the rock. At first I thought, oh nice! an explanation for the rock. My second thought was, hmm, was Raffaele the only one who could come up with that explanation because he was the one who threw the rock?:scared: and around I go again.

Good points.

 

[Katody]

An interesting aside: I keep abreast of Andrea Vogts freelance desk along with others, and she has an update for today, 12/30/13. She has released communications from the Italians in Perugia to the US Embassy re Amanda Knox beginning in 2007. So it would appear that American officials were kept updated on all developments occurring within this criminal investigation and were not in the dark about the proceedings.

I wonder if the officials were informed that Amanda made a written statement describing criminal abuse by the interrogators. I wonder if the officials requested an investigation of this.

 

[SMK]

The police were suspicious because the climb seemed impossible to them. As we've seen in the TV reconstruction the climb is easy. The court saw another video demonstration by Raffaele's lawyer.

I wouldn't trust in the Perugian authorities opinions and judgment at all.



There is only one scenario. The other one is not even a scenario but a naked assertion. It doesn't explain the evidence, it doesn't provide any answers. it doesn't try to fit the evidence into any coherent whole.

I'd love to see some attempt at explaining the nonexistence of traces in Meredith's room.
or the footprints, how do they fit the guilt scenario, how and when were they made?
or why would guilty Raffaele drop his alibi out of nowhere?
or why would the kitchen knife be used in murder?

Once we have something including all of these elements we can consider which scenario looks more plausible. Now there is simply nothing to compare at all.

Well, I know what you mean. But Mignini, Massei, Micheli, Crini do believe they have answered to all and created a cohesive narrative and rendered a logical explanation from the pieces.

 

[SMK]

I wonder if the officials were informed that Amanda made a written statement describing criminal abuse by the interrogators. I wonder if the officials requested an investigation of this.

I cannot see why the defense team, together with Curt Knox, her German family, and others, could not have made these things know to the embassy, and requested some sort of investigation. It's not as though Knox was alone in her plight: From the beginning, she had others fighting for her. I'll bet my family would have let me rot in an Italian jail....