Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#12

[Snoods]

He never confessed to killing her but admitted being in the cottage and in the murder room and told his best friend she wasn't involved and some mystery Italian dude knocked on the door while he sat on the toilet and did it. As time went on his story started changing to include them. He said he saw her silhouette while he leaned out the window which happened to be the broken one in Filomena's room. At one point his lawyers were saying a guy seen at the fountain the morning after the murder might be the killer. The only time he ever faced questioning from the defence lawyers was at the last appeal and he handed a letter he couldn't read to Mignini who read it for him saying they killed her. The prosecution and Kercher family lawyer objected to the defence questioning him about the murder.

Yes, that's actually what I meant by his confession; sorry my question was poorly worded. Thank you for the explanation. The tenuous (at BEST) relationship between the three of them has been one of the sticking points with me in favor of their innocence. It just seems so impossible to me that the three of them joined forces and RS and AK held MK down so RG could murder and rape her that night. All without leaving any DNA behind. I know, I know, the metal bra clasp. I think Bill said it best in regards to that. Is there any proof that they ever spent any time together or knew one another? I thought he only knew of them because he spent a bit of time with the neighbors.

Also, the fact that some think AK and RS were drug-addled the night of the murder, but not so much that they could clean up their own DNA from the murder scene, while strategically leaving all of RG's DNA behind. But then as careful as they were to clean up all of their DNA from the murder room, left RS's footprint on the bathmat. (I don't think it is RS's footprint on the bathmat, BTW)

Hope this makes sense, sometimes the coherent and persuasive thoughts in my head don't come out as smoothly in the written word.

 

[Snoods]

If I may add to my above post; also the fact that RS turned down a plea deal, given the fact that he could potentially face life in prison. He must have been very confident that no evidence would implicate them in the murder.

 

[Amber29]

Do y'all mean that even if Rudy came out with a complete confession that he broke in and was solely responsible for Meredith's death, that you would not believe him? Would still see Amanda's and Raffaele's hands in it?

I can't speak for everyone here but if RG spoke out and fully confessed with what actually happened that night, of course I would believe him.

I know it was said that its a cult of people that think she's guilty but I think the same can be said of her followers.

I don't know about a lie detector test, there's a reason they aren't used in court.

If AK confessed to being a part of Meredith's murder would anyone believe her or still make excuses for her?

 

[Bill C]

bbm

So it is automatically "credible" if the defense argues against it due to contamination or whatever else reason?

Why would the prosecution argue against the evidence?

The only people who have incentive to argue contamination is the defense, b/c the evidence in "dispute" is harmful towards their clients.

So when you say "the other DNA collection and analysis has never been credibly questioned (I may be wrong here) and therefore should be admissible," what you're really saying is that the defense is not arguing contamination against any other evidence, that is why it is not in "dispute."

Because the defense is the only one who is going to be arguing against it, as I said, b/c only they have the incentive b/c it hurts their clients.

If the prosecution presents DNA evidence that shows guilt they have the REPONSIBILITY to make sure that the evidence is sound and the defense would have the opportunity to discredit that evidence by showing faulty collection, storage or analysis.
If the defense presents exculpatory DNA evidence, they have the RESPONSIBILITY to make sure that their evidence is sound and the prosecution would have the opportunity to discredit that evidence by showing faulty collection, storage or analysis.
I might add that since most evidence is collected by the police, in most Western countries it is incumbant that the prosecution makes any excupatory evidence available to the defense; however, having provided that evidence, the prosecution still has the opportunity to challenge the authenticity of that evidence. I will admit that doing so may prove to be embarrasing in the sense that they would be challenging their own experts' expertise.
In the Knox case, the prosecution had the opportunity to challenge, the court appointed experts' (C+V) analysis of the DNA evidence. Thus far, IMO, they have not been able to discredit that analysis.

 

[Bill C]

I can't speak for everyone here but if RG spoke out and fully confessed with what actually happened that night, of course I would believe him.

I know it was said that its a cult of people that think she's guilty but I think the same can be said of her followers.

I don't know about a lie detector test, there's a reason they aren't used in court.

If AK confessed to being a part of Meredith's murder would anyone believe her or still make excuses for her?

Notice my hypothetical question had BOTH AK and RS taking the lie detector test. The chances of BOTH lying "beating the box" is incredibly low so I think the test would be very reliable.

Nobody has answered the second and third part of my question, namely, would an excupatory lie detector test of both defendents significantly sway public opinion and if so, would (NOT SHOULD) a pro AK and RS public opinion have ANY effect on the ISC in their evaluation of the conviction?

By the way, if either AK or RS confessed and it wasn't a questionably coerced confession, I would vote guilty without hesitation.

 

[aa9511]

Good one!

The response to the new Facebook page in 36 hours has been impressive. Nearly 1700 likes and rising.

So how many Facebook pages does she have? I thought she was already on Facebook. Does that mean she has 2 Facebook pages?

 

[aa9511]

Yes, that's actually what I meant by his confession; sorry my question was poorly worded. Thank you for the explanation. The tenuous (at BEST) relationship between the three of them has been one of the sticking points with me in favor of their innocence. It just seems so impossible to me that the three of them joined forces and RS and AK held MK down so RG could murder and rape her that night. All without leaving any DNA behind. I know, I know, the metal bra clasp. I think Bill said it best in regards to that. Is there any proof that they ever spent any time together or knew one another? I thought he only knew of them because he spent a bit of time with the neighbors.

Also, the fact that some think AK and RS were drug-addled the night of the murder, but not so much that they could clean up their own DNA from the murder scene, while strategically leaving all of RG's DNA behind. But then as careful as they were to clean up all of their DNA from the murder room, left RS's footprint on the bathmat. (I don't think it is RS's footprint on the bathmat, BTW)

Hope this makes sense, sometimes the coherent and persuasive thoughts in my head don't come out as smoothly in the written word.

Have you heard of the "prank" theory? That Amanda and RS wanted to do a fun prank on Meredith that night. That would answer a lot of your questions. They might have bumped into Rudy and asked him to join them, to make the prank more "fun." Or they could have actually recruited him, b/c a scaring kind of prank is scarier with more people involved, also his race might have played a factor in their asking him to join them. JMO.

It answers why they got together. It answers the "drug issue" - they didn't need to be on any drugs to do a fun prank. And they would still have their wits about them to figure out a plan in the MANY HOURS after the crime happened and to when the body was discovered. It also would possibly explain the DNA - perhaps the original prank had Rudy coming in and grabbing a hold of Meredith, while the other two scare her without physically holding her. Meredith gets accidentally badly wounded with the knife (two knives used for prank, one butcher, one Rudy's pocket-sized one). Rudy drops her. They panic. In the next moments, they decide that they have no other choice but to make this "accident' appear like someone came in and intentionally murdered her. Thus you see how Rudy's DNA would be the one primarily on her, becaues he was the one who had been holding her for the prank.

 

[Katody]

So how many Facebook pages does she have? I thought she was already on Facebook. Does that mean she has 2 Facebook pages?

She has a personal page and a one dedicated to the case.

Hardly excessive considering there are 3 internet sites devoted solely to destroying her and her family and numerous blogging "journalists" that keep smearing her.

 

[aa9511]

If I may add to my above post; also the fact that RS turned down a plea deal, given the fact that he could potentially face life in prison. He must have been very confident that no evidence would implicate them in the murder.

Do we know for a fact that he was offered a "plea deal?" That's why he alludes to, or maybe even outright says, but that's coming from him.

 

[Amber29]

Notice my hypothetical question had BOTH AK and RS taking the lie detector test. The chances of BOTH lying "beating the box" is incredibly low so I think the test would be very reliable.

Nobody has answered the second and third part of my question, namely, would an excupatory lie detector test of both defendents significantly sway public opinion and if so, would (NOT SHOULD) a pro AK and RS public opinion have ANY effect on the ISC in their evaluation of the conviction?

By the way, if either AK or RS confessed and it wasn't a questionably coerced confession, I would vote guilty without hesitation.

I honestly don't know enough about lie detectors but yes my mind would probably change if they both passed with flying colors as you say, depending on the questions asked of course.

I simply look at the evidence and form my own opinion, I follow many cases I'm not obsessed with this one. I don't actively post about other cases atm but I do a ton of reading. I will accept this verdict for whatever it is because at the end of the day it has no affect on my life. I have never discussed a case that has such divide as this one, besides Trayvon Martin maybe.

 

[Harmony 2]

The claim that the opposing view is part of a cult mentality is asserted to debase their opinion. It implies that people follow the crowd and can’t think for themselves. Answering your opponent's argument with irrelevant general assumptions about personal characteristics of the opposition is an attempt to lessen that opinion.

Reading across the board on the internet it seems most know the evidence quite well and have reached their own conclusions.

The discussion is about the facts, assumptions and conclusions, not personal characteristics of fellow posters.

 

[Bill C]

I honestly don't know enough about lie detectors but yes my mind would probably change if they both passed with flying colors as you say, depending on the questions asked of course.

I simply look at the evidence and form my own opinion, I follow many cases I'm not obsessed with this one. I don't actively post about other cases atm but I do a ton of reading. I will accept this verdict for whatever it is because at the end of the day it has no affect on my life. I have never discussed a case that has such divide as this one, besides Trayvon Martin maybe.

I admire your open mind. What do you think about my second and third questions? My personal opinion is that even though public opinion shouldn't effect the ISC ruling, it probably will have some effect, especially public opinion within Italy. Call me cynical!

 

[aa9511]

If the prosecution presents DNA evidence that shows guilt they have the REPONSIBILITY to make sure that the evidence is sound and the defense would have the opportunity to discredit that evidence by showing faulty collection, storage or analysis.
If the defense presents exculpatory DNA evidence, they have the RESPONSIBILITY to make sure that their evidence is sound and the prosecution would have the opportunity to discredit that evidence by showing faulty collection, storage or analysis.
I might add that since most evidence is collected by the police, in most Western countries it is incumbant that the prosecution makes any excupatory evidence available to the defense; however, having provided that evidence, the prosecution still has the opportunity to challenge the authenticity of that evidence. I will admit that doing so may prove to be embarrasing in the sense that they would be challenging their own experts' expertise.
In the Knox case, the prosecution had the opportunity to challenge, the court appointed experts' (C+V) analysis of the DNA evidence. Thus far, IMO, they have not been able to discredit that analysis.

Yes, but in this case, the DNA which was found on Amanda and RS, all of it, supports the prosecution. And it hurts the defense because it points unfavorably towards their clients.

So, naturally, in this case, the defense would be the ones who argue with that evidence.

When you say, "the prosecution had the opportunity to challenge....C+V...," well C+V was arguiing against DNA evidence which already existed against Amanda and RS. It wasn't like they came up with some totally new DNA evidence - such as, oh wait we found some DNA evidence here for a man named John Smith. To which the prosecution would have naturally had to "answer" for.

So since the DNA evidence found was damaging towards the defense's clients, naturally the defense has the burden of reducing the weight of that evidence against their clients.

 

[MichaelSmith]

So how many Facebook pages does she have? I thought she was already on Facebook. Does that mean she has 2 Facebook pages?

<modsnip> Now I'm not suggesting you do that, of course not, but it's not hard to find out how many Facebook accounts she has. It's two AFIK and they've been posted here along with a link to her blog.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Yes, but in this case, the DNA which was found on Amanda and RS, all of it, supports the prosecution. And it hurts the defense because it points unfavorably towards their clients.

So, naturally, in this case, the defense would be the ones who argue with that evidence.

When you say, "the prosecution had the opportunity to challenge....C+V...," well C+V was arguiing against DNA evidence which already existed against Amanda and RS. It wasn't like they came up with some totally new DNA evidence - such as, oh wait we found some DNA evidence here for a man named John Smith. To which the prosecution would have naturally had to "answer" for.

So since the DNA evidence found was damaging towards the defense's clients, naturally the defense has the burden of reducing the weight of that evidence against their clients.

Could you use the transcripts or motivation documents to support what you've claimed? It would help and then we can discuss. Thanks.

 

[Amber29]

I admire your open mind. What do you think about my second and third questions? My personal opinion is that even though public opinion shouldn't effect the ISC ruling, it probably will have some effect, especially public opinion within Italy. Call me cynical!

I don't really know, I will say that I hope even if they are acquitted that its the end of it. I don't want to see this drag on and on.

 

[aa9511]

Notice my hypothetical question had BOTH AK and RS taking the lie detector test. The chances of BOTH lying "beating the box" is incredibly low so I think the test would be very reliable.

Nobody has answered the second and third part of my question, namely, would an excupatory lie detector test of both defendents significantly sway public opinion and if so, would (NOT SHOULD) a pro AK and RS public opinion have ANY effect on the ISC in their evaluation of the conviction?

By the way, if either AK or RS confessed and it wasn't a questionably coerced confession, I would vote guilty without hesitation.

bbm

Honestly, I think it has been so long with this case, that there is not as much public interest as we think there is. I think "out there" in the general public, it would be a one-day kind of "highlight" in the news, and then forgotten about.

So I do not think it would have any effect on the ISC, because I think public opinion on it would be registered only very minimally.

I am very hesitant when you add the part that as long as it's not a "questionably coerced confession." Because I feel like that net is very wide, and the supporters of her innocence could use that in any number of ways. For example - Amanda makes a posting on her blog confessing to her part in the murder. Then the supporters are going to say something like, "Her lawyers made her say that because they thought the guilty verdict would be approved by Supreme Court, and they want to make a deal with the prosecution." (this is just a hypothetical, of course). Thus she was "coerced" into it.

Or.....the pressure of the stress of everything got to her, and she felt like she couldn't take it anymore, so she just fake-confessed because she just wants to be done with all of this - she can't take it anymore.

Or.......she was so pressured by the Italian system thousands of miles away, that she wanted to say something to "please" them, so that they will just stop "harassing her" and she can move on with her life.

So you how that "qualification" which you added could cast a wide net and excuse away anything she says. JMO.

 

[aa9511]

She has a personal page and a one dedicated to the case.

Hardly excessive considering there are 3 internet sites devoted solely to destroying her and her family and numerous blogging "journalists" that keep smearing her.

Oh.....ok.

 

[Amber29]

If the prosecution presents DNA evidence that shows guilt they have the REPONSIBILITY to make sure that the evidence is sound and the defense would have the opportunity to discredit that evidence by showing faulty collection, storage or analysis.
If the defense presents exculpatory DNA evidence, they have the RESPONSIBILITY to make sure that their evidence is sound and the prosecution would have the opportunity to discredit that evidence by showing faulty collection, storage or analysis.
I might add that since most evidence is collected by the police, in most Western countries it is incumbant that the prosecution makes any excupatory evidence available to the defense; however, having provided that evidence, the prosecution still has the opportunity to challenge the authenticity of that evidence. I will admit that doing so may prove to be embarrasing in the sense that they would be challenging their own experts' expertise.
In the Knox case, the prosecution had the opportunity to challenge, the court appointed experts' (C+V) analysis of the DNA evidence. Thus far, IMO, they have not been able to discredit that analysis.

Would you not agree that contamination is often used to discredit evidence? I actually brought up a case where a man is on death row, even though the victim had blood under her nails from an unidentified male. In this case it was the prosecution that claimed contamination. It's then left up to the jury to decide how they feel about the evidence. Apparently that blood meant little to them, I can't say I would agree.

As much as people would like it, the bra clasp is still considered evidence. It will be up to the jury to decide how much weight they give it.

 

[aa9511]

<modsnip> Now I'm not suggesting you do that, of course not, but it's not hard to find out how many Facebook accounts she has. It's two AFIK and they've been posted here along with a link to her blog.

Well I am not on Facebook, and I am not about to join simply to follow Amanda Knox. This is why I was asking, because I do not follow her current pages.