Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL* #2

[Snoods]

Are you sure, Snoods? I'm probably wrong but I thought Italy doesn't have "plea deals" in the sense we use the term here in the States. Rudy Guede got a reduced sentence for pleading guilty and saving the Court the cost of a trial, but (in theory) not because he ratted on AK and RS.

In any event, I hope you won't hesitate to express opinions and ask questions. You can see I've been under fire, but, honestly, it ain't so bad.

Oh sorry Nova, perhaps my use of the term plea deal is incorrect. I believe he was asked to frame her in return for a reduced sentence? We all know MSM has been known to stretch the truth and I don't know if Express is considered to be a reputable news source but for what it's worth:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/42...-Amanda-Knox-and-feared-she-would-do-the-same


Also in RS's book is this quote (Mods, not sure if it is okay to quote from a book? Please delete if not!):

At one time after the first conviction, Sollecito's father sought the help of a private lawyer not connected to the case, who spoke to Perugia prosecutor Giuliano Mignini about striking a plea deal to cut Sollecito's sentence in exchange for evidence against Knox.

I haven't read his book yet but I'd bet it's interesting.

 

[Nova]

So was there something about Amanda that Meredith and her friends just didn't like? That certainly seems to be the case according to Meredith and her friends, and Meredith's father.

They barely knew AK and of course they were suspicious based on what LE was telling them.

 

[Linda7NJ]

They barely knew AK and of course they were suspicious based on what LE was telling them.

I never met her, and didn't like her the first time I laid eyes on her. Something just isn't "right" with that young woman.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Nova]

Sure. I do see Knox's pre-occupation with "creative" writings about drugging and raping, which continued after her incarceration, as abnormal.

I'm not sure what you want proved. As I've said, I believe that if an 18-22 year old adult is pre-occupied with drugs and rape, the adult should be monitored. I would never think "hey, that's youth, no problem." Read about Jessica Ridgeway and tell me that it is normal and acceptable for a youth or young adult to be pre-occupied with rape and drugs.

None of that is proof, only mere speculation on your part. I don't intend to jump through hoops because you want to hold me to standards of proof you don't meet yourself.

(Edited because Stephen King is discussed better above.)

The link you are trying to make between AK's alleged rape/murder "obsession" (which wasn't an obsession by any clinical definition) is as absurd as the prosecutor's insistence that he knew AK was guilty because of the way she moved her hips!

 

[Nova]

Is the theory that a burglar threw a rock through Filomina's bedroom window, scaled the shear wall, climbed in the window ... remember, he's a burglar ... ignored Filomina's laptop, ignored the jewelry in the top drawer of the desk, yanked some clothes from the closet (threw them on the floor) and proceeded down the hall, past Knox's bedroom, to the primary target: Meredith's rent money and cell phones?

Does that seems far fetched?

No, I believe the theory is that he stopped to use the bathroom and was surprised by MK's return. For all we know, RG planned to spend the night. Wasn't he basically homeless at that point?

 

[Snoods]

I think because then Amanda would have "told" everything on him. See, this way is the way that the LEAST possible amount of information about their involvement comes out. If one confesses, the other is going to reveal the entire involvement of that other person, while at the same time doing damage control to minimize their own involvement.

MOO. Perhaps I should start writing MOO or IMO or JMO after every post.

Yes, I see your point and actually that makes a lot of sense. I keep going back and forth on this detail. But if I did something so heinous, would I rely on the other person to hold their tongue? Especially since she had been behaving so strangely, as even noted by RS? I lean towards her innocence and even I think she was acting oddly. But I have learned over many cases here on WS not to equate odd behavior with being a murderer.

 

[Nova]

I have also taught creative writing for many years! I'm a poet and Iowa Writers' Workshop grad. I think it's a very common idea that people have that young writers typically write about violence. I've taught at the University level for a long time, both undergraduate and graduate students. It's really rare, actually, for me to get pieces that are gratuitous/graphic. When I do, it is a definite red flag for me as a teacher to keep an eye on the student. One student was obsessed with sexual violence and had substance abuse issues. One was just misogynist. If the piece has some kind of redemptive thread in it, fine. I have never taught playwriting/screenwriting, though, and that could certainly be different!....

They are. As you know, although poems can be narratives, contemporary ones often are not.

When dealing with narrative forms (plays, most short stories), students usually feel they have to find some sort of action. And they commonly confuse "action" in the Aristotelian sense (meaning purposeful change) with "business" such as murders, rapes and car chases. Again, it's what they know from movies and TV.

(Grad students should certainly know better, but AK wasn't yet at that level.)

 

[Snoods]

Yes, but after the conviction they both knew that they were going to get a chance to appeal. It wasn't over yet.

Yes, they both knew they would get a chance to appeal but how often does that work out? I'm sure they both knew their chances of winning an appeal was slim. IMO!

 

[Snoods]

bbm

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Snoods, if you don't give me snark, I'm not gonna give you snark. I think your posts are very well-reasoned and insightful!

It's like one of those puzzles where all the pieces just never fit right. Talking about DNA (or lack of) on knife and the lack of RS or AK DNA relative to Rudy G's, it is not wholly convincing of their guilt. But then there's the cover-up and staging of the scene, and inconsistencies in their stories about that night and morning.....someone covered-up the scene (fake burglary)and it was not Rudy G. So we have several pieces that don't fit together, but we can't just exclude them altogether.

Also, sometimes something is so obvious that we tend to want to discount it. For example, we know someone staged the burglary. Also someone walked around in the house with some blood on their feet, however those footrpints are missing. So someone did some cleaning up. And who was standing outside the front door of the cottage when the police unexpectedly showed up at the house...........ding, ding....Amanda and Raffaelo. We on here tend to analyze so much that we forget the obvious things!

Thank you for receiving me here so gently!!:blowkiss: I knew if I brought up kittens nobody would be mean to me! :giggle: Okay, you got me with the footprints. If the footprints were missing how did they know bloody footprints were supposed to be there? You mean they were smeary prints? And a staged burglary? But wasn't there a real burglary, with RG? Why would there need to be a staged burglary?

 

[Snoods]

bbm

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Snoods, if you don't give me snark, I'm not gonna give you snark. I think your posts are very well-reasoned and insightful!

It's like one of those puzzles where all the pieces just never fit right. Talking about DNA (or lack of) on knife and the lack of RS or AK DNA relative to Rudy G's, it is not wholly convincing of their guilt. But then there's the cover-up and staging of the scene, and inconsistencies in their stories about that night and morning.....someone covered-up the scene (fake burglary)and it was not Rudy G. So we have several pieces that don't fit together, but we can't just exclude them altogether.

Also, sometimes something is so obvious that we tend to want to discount it. For example, we know someone staged the burglary. Also someone walked around in the house with some blood on their feet, however those footrpints are missing. So someone did some cleaning up. And who was standing outside the front door of the cottage when the police unexpectedly showed up at the house...........ding, ding....Amanda and Raffaelo. We on here tend to analyze so much that we forget the obvious things!

And weren't RG's prints all over the house? How would they have managed to clean up their own prints but skip over RG's prints?

 

[Snoods]

Camera, jewelry and laptops that were not stolen is proof that burglary wasn't very important to the burglar. 43 injuries to the victim suggests that something other than burglary was behind the murder.

Could burglary gone wrong still not apply here? RG intended to burglarize the cottage, found Meredith in the bedroom and instead RG raped and murdered poor Meredith, leaving quickly afterwards.

 

[Snoods]

Sonata, I completely agree. However, that kind of collective sharing of ideas and experiences and viewpoints is not happening on this thread. This is not exactly a "kumbayah" thread (spelling horribly wrong, I'm sure!). Whenever I say something like, IMO an innocent person wouldn't do this, or IMO a guilty person wouldn't do this, my view is automatically discounted by essentially this: Well, you cannot be inside Amanda's head and know the exact thoughts she thought, so you are wrong. Well, in that case, none of us can speak about anything, because none of us can go inside each other's heads and see the world from that person's viewpoint, IYKWIM.

Yet it's ok, on the other hand, for some to say Amanda was "pressured" and "coerced" when she gave her statement. So it's ok for them to go into Amanda's head then and try to say what she felt like. And it's ok for them to try to imagine what someone would do in that situation, but it's not ok for me to imagine what I think someone would do in that situation. I'm automatically wrong, because I"m trying to go into Amanda's head, and I apparently can't do that even though everyone else can.

It's okay for everyone else to discount all of Amanda's odd behaviors by going into her head and trying to see things from her point of view, however, as usual, it's wrong for me to do the same. Only because I come up with a different idea of why she was displaying those odd behaviors.

So the "different views" and the "exploring our views" and trying to come out of our own perspective needs to go both ways.

I don't feel like my views are appreciated on here, honestly.

Awww aa951:rocker:You're great! For what it's worth as a newbie on this thread, I enjoy reading all of your posts. May not agree with them all, but they are always insightful and I appreciate that you try and see both sides and don't slam your rightness down our hideous wrong throats:giggle:. Especially being one sitting on the fence, although admittedly my legs are swinging on the innocent side, I enjoy reading your opinions. I want to know what you think is going on inside her head for sure, IYO of course. She is a very unique girl.

 

[Snoods]

Could all the former oddballs please have their past nerdiness verified by Websleuths moderators?

How can we be expected to take you at your word?

Thanks in advance.

:floorlaugh: Okay that was funny. I suppose I need to be verified as an official Crazy Dog Lady. I have all my paperwork in order, numerous dogs, crazy hair when I get my mail, people run the other way when they see me coming.:floorlaugh:

 

[Whisperer]

If this is directed at me I confess to be an newbie on this thread:blushing:

It's consuming to read all the posts, but thanks all you posting!I only recently started following the retrial and kept up with some of the past trial. I admit I didn't know a murder weapon with Amanda's blood on it was found. I know there is a knife in evidence, but I don't think it has ever been proven as the murder weapon. I could be wrong, but please read report: recent data from this article Dated October 16, 2013

quote from recent article"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...-win-for-american-accused-of-murder-in-italy/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...or-american-accused-of-murder-in-italy/Quote:

One of the big items trashed was the prosecution's claim they had found the knife that killed Meredith Kercher. The supposed murder weapon was discovered in a moment of clairvoyance by a Perugia police officer who apparently knew exactly which knife, among many in a kitchen drawer in Sollecito's apartment, was "the" knife. It was worthy of an episode on MythBusters. And, indeed, the myth was "busted" by the 2011 appellate court when it dismissed the kitchen knife as the weapon that killed Meredith Kercher.eapon was tested
This past weekend the results of the initial test on trace number 36-i were leaked to Italian media. The DNA isn't Meredith Kercher's. Nor is it Rudy Guede's. So there is still zero proof the kitchen knife is the murder weapon. The myth looks to be "busted" a second time.

The leaked test results say trace 36-i is Amanda Knox's DNA. Since the knife came from Sollecito's Perugia apartment in 2007, and Amanda Knox prepared food in that apartment, there is little mystery as to how Knox's DNA got on the kitchen knife.

So the murder weapon was handled by Amanda Know, in RS kitchen, without any Meredithc Kercher or Rudy Guede DNA, so it was just a random drawer with a knife that the prosecution chose as the murder weapon. The articles I'm finding today all seem to point in one direction.no DNA on the knife.

Sorry y'all, it's been a long night feeding 3 week old kittens every hour on the hour so break me in with kindness! Then you can drag me through the coals the morning!

Where did you find the article about the time AK blood dropped on the knife and when she did the killing? Can you quote that and has it been recent? I just want to know everything about this case. I'm sure it's out there just couldn't find it Yes, I'm leaning but I really want to hear bother sides!

Thank you very much for this explanation. I thought the knife WAS the weapon..oh boy. I read that it was her BF's and she cut herself while preparing food for dinner one night. Wow..so this is not fact. If not fact, how do they have evidence to prove Amanda and her BF killed Meredith?

I'm sorry to just pop in. I have not followed the case...just saw a little on the news and saw her interview. I am very confused about the evidence. I wanted to know how long it was btwn the blood on the dinner knife and the killing but all that is moot now.

Thanks so much.
Whisperer

 

[Amber29]

No, I believe the theory is that he stopped to use the bathroom and was surprised by MK's return. For all we know, RG planned to spend the night. Wasn't he basically homeless at that point?

No Rudy Guede was not homeless. He had an apartment not far from the cottage.

 

[MaybeNotToday]

Could all the former oddballs please have their past nerdiness verified by Websleuths moderators?

How can we be expected to take you at your word?

Thanks in advance.

I don't know. Can you verify it's actually you posting here? You could be a robot for all we know.

 

[Amber29]

Thank you very much for this explanation. I thought the knife WAS the weapon..oh boy. I read that it was her BF's and she cut herself while preparing food for dinner one night. Wow..so this is not fact. If not fact, how do they have evidence to prove Amanda and her BF killed Meredith?

I'm sorry to just pop in. I have not followed the case...just saw a little on the news and saw her interview. I am very confused about the evidence. I wanted to know how long it was btwn the blood on the dinner knife and the killing but all that is moot now.

Thanks so much.
Whisperer

The DNA of Meredith is still on the knife. What is being tested is a new sample found near where the blade and handle meet. If the DNA on the blade doesn't match Meredith, why would RS try and explain this DNA saying he accidentally pricked Meredith while cooking? (He had never cooked with Meredith)
The knife was picked out of the drawer because it stood out compared to others due it looking extra "shiny" having been over cleaned iirc.

 

[whoanellie]

The DNA of Meredith is still on the knife. What is being tested is a new sample found near where the blade and handle meet. If the DNA on the blade doesn't match Meredith, why would RS try and explain this DNA saying he accidentally pricked Meredith while cooking? (He had never cooked with Meredith)
The knife was picked out of the drawer because it stood out compared to others due it looking extra "shiny" having been over cleaned iirc.

If it was over-cleaned why would there still be DNA on it?

 

[Amber29]

If it was over-cleaned why would there still be DNA on it?

Because you can't see DNA.. Lots of murder weapons are "cleaned" doesn't mean traces can't be found. You can argue that point to try and discredit it if you wish. IMO the DNA on the knife is the top of the ice berg when it comes to evidence in this case.

 

[OldSteve]

The DNA of Meredith is still on the knife. What is being tested is a new sample found near where the blade and handle meet. If the DNA on the blade doesn't match Meredith, why would RS try and explain this DNA saying he accidentally pricked Meredith while cooking? (He had never cooked with Meredith)
The knife was picked out of the drawer because it stood out compared to others due it looking extra "shiny" having been over cleaned iirc.

Don't see how just accidentally nicking someone would get blood where blade/handle join. Think about it. Sounds like it would takes lots, lots of blood to get it there.

I'm big on it's a sign of guilt when one has to change their account of things....

OT - Over the years my take on this case has changed - I am now very much touched by tragic, uncalled for, horrific, senseless death and suffering that Meredith was forced to endure. (sorry for a bit of a rant)
ETA: I'm not saying anyone here does not feel the same way.. regardless which side of guilt/innocence you're on.