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

[Sonata]

Sigh, I guess I'll jump into this whole "writing" debate....:floorlaugh:

Nova, I understand your above points. One thing I would like to mention is, a couple of months ago I watched the Grant Hayes trial (north carolina), I think I started from somewhere around the middle. I hope this is not ruled as off-topic, b/c I am just mentioning it as an example (thank you!). Anyway, he and his wife murdered his ex-wife, then chopped up her body and transported it via coolers all the way to Texas where they dumped her in a creek.

Now this Grant Hayes also considered himself a "creative type," and he was a musician. He wrote songs and sometimes recorded hip-hop songs. And in his actual trial, the prosecutors actually played one of his songs for the jury to hear. This song contained explicit lyrics specifically about killing his ex-wife, as well as general lyrics about killing in general. I can't remember the exact words, but let's just say it was "disturbed." IIRC, he also talked about rape, and rape in regards to both his ex-wife and in general.

The prosecutors were able to use it as one piece of evidence, I'm assuming partly to show he wanted to kill his ex-wife, and partly to show that he had disturbed thinking and was capable of doing what he did.

I believe the Grant Hayes judge allowed this recording in because he talked specifically about his ex-wife, the person he ended up murdering. I do not believe a judge would have allowed it otherwise, but my point is that if Amanda's trial was here in the U.S.., and if a judge allowed them, I would have no trouble believing that any prosecutor would want those writings in as evidence. (Not that a judge would allow it, but if they did for some reason).

So therefore, I do think they have value, whether they in reality should or not.

Interesting. Here in the UK we have an opposite example, in the trial of Vincent Tabak, who murdered his young female neighbour. He pleaded guilty of manslaughter saying it was accidental. There was evidence of sexual assault.

After the trial, it came to light that he had been watching violent even on the day of her death. And that one particular video featured a girl of very similar appearance to the victim, and iirc finished with her in the same positioning as they had found the body. This information was not allowed as part of the trial as it would have influenced the decision and was not directly related to the events.

Not about creativity, obviously, but still relevant I feel.

 

[Sonata]

In math (game theory), it's called the prisoner's paradox. The only scenario where everyone wins is where everyone remains silent.

What usually happens in the prisoners dilemma is that people initially protect the other person with silence and very quickly change their minds.

The exception was in a gender based study where participants knew that the rest of the group were watching. In those cases men were more likely to accuse the other, and women more likely to stay silent. But this only happens if they know there is an audience. The conclusion was that men gain status from taking the more aggressive stance and women from a protective stance.

I can give citations for this if anyone wants. I covered it in a paper for my MA.

 

[Tugela]

We know he used the toilet, but that doesn't mean that he broke into the cottage to use the toilet. The prosecution theory is that Guede met with Sollecito and Knox in relation to drugs, that they went together to the cottage, that Guede used the toilet, that they chose to harass Meredith and ultimately murdered her. After the murder, they stole her rent money, stole both of her cell phones and fled the scene. Guede returned to his apartment where he changed clothes, and then he went dancing. Knox and Sollecito disposed of the phones and, after believing that no one had reported the screams, returned to the cottage to stage the scene. They returned to Sollecito's apartment at roughly 5:30 AM, where they used the computer to play music. They got up at about 10, and Knox went to the cottage to check the situation. After noon, they contacted Filomina ... and so on.

Why would Sollecito and Knox need to steal her rent money and cell phone. You could understand why Guede would, but not the other two. And if Guede wanted to steal stuff, you can see why he would break in.

Also, if, as the prosecution claims (with no evidence), that this was a drug fueled orgy, then how would they have enough sense of mind to do all these things if they were high out of their minds?

 

[Tugela]

Interesting. Here in the UK we have an opposite example, in the trial of Vincent Tabak, who murdered his young female neighbour. He pleaded guilty of manslaughter saying it was accidental. There was evidence of sexual assault.

After the trial, it came to light that he had been watching violent even on the day of her death. And that one particular video featured a girl of very similar appearance to the victim, and iirc finished with her in the same positioning as they had found the body. This information was not allowed as part of the trial as it would have influenced the decision and was not directly related to the events.

Not about creativity, obviously, but still relevant I feel.

Generally stuff like that would be considered prejudicial for the trial itself, although it could be used in the sentencing phase.

In the case you were responding to, you had the accused saying "I'm going to do X", then going ahead and doing it. That would be admissible because it is specific, but more general things not.

 

[whoanellie]

Why would Sollecito and Knox need to steal her rent money and cell phone. You could understand why Guede would, but not the other two. And if Guede wanted to steal stuff, you can see why he would break in.

Also, if, as the prosecution claims (with no evidence), that this was a drug fueled orgy, then how would they have enough sense of mind to do all these things if they were high out of their minds?

Good questions. In my opinion the prosecution's theory of the the crime is just so far-fetched. There is simply no even half-way credible explanation of the motive for the alleged crime.

 

[Amber29]

blood in the sink belongs to Meredith AND Knox?? :scared:

Yes as was the sample from the bidet. Also from a spot revealed with luminal in Filomenas room (where the break in was staged) a mixed sample of Meredith and Amanda was found.

 

[otto]

Interesting. Here in the UK we have an opposite example, in the trial of Vincent Tabak, who murdered his young female neighbour. He pleaded guilty of manslaughter saying it was accidental. There was evidence of sexual assault.

After the trial, it came to light that he had been watching violent even on the day of her death. And that one particular video featured a girl of very similar appearance to the victim, and iirc finished with her in the same positioning as they had found the body. This information was not allowed as part of the trial as it would have influenced the decision and was not directly related to the events.

Not about creativity, obviously, but still relevant I feel.

That's a really good example of connecting a prior pre-occupation with and rape to an actual acting out of the exact same scenario. In a photo that Tabak took of Joanna Yeates, he had posed her in his car in the exact same position as a photo that was found in his computer. Wasn't he also encouraging police suspicions of the landlord? There was something else he did that helped point the finger at an innocent man ... another innocent man that spent some time in prison before his name could be cleared.

Before this point gets turned inside out, I will clarify: the implication is that people that rape and murder probably demonstrated a strong interest, or pre-occupation, in rape/murder prior to their first offense. This is not to say that all people that view ultimately commit rape.

 

[OldSteve]

Why would Sollecito and Knox need to steal her rent money and cell phone. You could understand why Guede would, but not the other two. And if Guede wanted to steal stuff, you can see why he would break in.

Also, if, as the prosecution claims (with no evidence), that this was a drug fueled orgy, then how would they have enough sense of mind to do all these things if they were high out of their minds?

I can't remember enough to answer this as well others can, but Guede could have gone after the rent money for himself, and the others took the cellphones to cover up? Or, they could have taken the money not because they needed it, but to stage the break in....

I can't help but go back to the covering of Meredith with the duvet. How do they go from a most violent/vicious attack to then covering her up? Seem like that would have happened later, after someone(s) cooled down a bit and/or returned back to the scene....
Is that something Guede would have done?

 

[otto]

What usually happens in the prisoners dilemma is that people initially protect the other person with silence and very quickly change their minds.

The exception was in a gender based study where participants knew that the rest of the group were watching. In those cases men were more likely to accuse the other, and women more likely to stay silent. But this only happens if they know there is an audience. The conclusion was that men gain status from taking the more aggressive stance and women from a protective stance.

I can give citations for this if anyone wants. I covered it in a paper for my MA.

With Knox and Sollecito, he was the first to admit that he told police a "load of rubbish", and proceeded to state that Knox was not with him on the night of the murder. Knox, when presented with Sollecito's admission, then presented a scenario that was partially truthful, but she named the wrong black man. She correctly told police, on November 6, that more than one person was involved in the murder. Guede initially kept quiet, but it didn't take long for him to tell investigators that Knox had an altercation with Meredith about the money - which escalated to murder.

I actually just pulled this book off the shelf: Games & Decisions, by Luce and Raiffa, to check the n-person analogue. There's another book that may interest you, written by a mathematician and her daughter about how math and murder intersect. I'll post the link when I remember the title. The author has closely followed this case.

 

[OldSteve]

With Knox and Sollecito, he was the first to admit that he told police a "load of rubbish", and proceeded to state that Knox was not with him on the night of the murder. Knox, when presented with Sollecito's admission, then presented a scenario that was partially truthful, but she named the wrong black man. She correctly told police, on November 6, that more than one person was involved in the murder. Guede initially kept quiet, but it didn't take long for him to tell investigators that Knox had an altercation with Meredith about the money - which escalated to murder.

So how do they explain why they lied/changed accounts?

The guilty squirm and change their stories; the innocent flatmates each gave their account and that was it.

 

[otto]

Why would Sollecito and Knox need to steal her rent money and cell phone. You could understand why Guede would, but not the other two. And if Guede wanted to steal stuff, you can see why he would break in.

Also, if, as the prosecution claims (with no evidence), that this was a drug fueled orgy, then how would they have enough sense of mind to do all these things if they were high out of their minds?

Meredith withdrew the 300 euro rent money a few days early and wanted to give it to Filomina, as she collected the money. Filomina didn't want to hold the money and said she would accept it after the weekend. Knox said that she couldn't pay rent until after Patrick paid her. Sollecito was on a monthly allowance and he had very little money at the end of October. They may have decided to steal the money for drugs. People sometimes steal because they can, not only because they have no money.

The phones were taken to prevent Meredith from calling for help. They obviously weren't stolen so that they could be used by someone else ... since they had been thrown away by 12:11 AM; within 2 hours of the murder.

If Guede wanted to steal something, and if he had climbed through the window, he would have stolen Filomina's laptop and jewelry, then he would have stolen Knox's laptop. Both were in plain view, but neither was stolen.

Knox and Sollecito have admitted that they were so high on drugs and alcohol that their memories of the night of the murder have vanished. Rather than interpret orgy as orgy, try inserting the phrase: sexual assault involving several people.

 

[otto]

Generally stuff like that would be considered prejudicial for the trial itself, although it could be used in the sentencing phase.

In the case you were responding to, you had the accused saying "I'm going to do X", then going ahead and doing it. That would be admissible because it is specific, but more general things not.

In NC, a suspect's character and prior, related activities can be presented during trial. In the trial of Brad Cooper (murder of his wife Nancy), the first two weeks of the trial involved testimony from neighbors describing their opinions of Brad. If he had written a short story about men that murder wives, that would have been admitted during trial testimony.

 

[otto]

I can't remember enough to answer this as well others can, but Guede could have gone after the rent money for himself, and the others took the cellphones to cover up? Or, they could have taken the money not because they needed it, but to stage the break in....

I can't help but go back to the covering of Meredith with the duvet. How do they go from a most violent/vicious attack to then covering her up? Seem like that would have happened later, after someone(s) cooled down a bit and/or returned back to the scene....
Is that something Guede would have done?

I'm pretty sure that part of the staging theory was based on the location of lividity. I believe that there was blood pooling on Meredith's shoulder, but she was found lying on her back. That suggested that she had been moved a few hours after the murder. I'll see if I can find it in the Massei report, as I do recall reading about it.

ETA: skimmed through the Massei report, so far no confirmation of what I posted above regarding lividity, but I'll keep looking.

 

[otto]

So how do they explain why they lied/changed accounts?

The guilty squirm and change their stories; the innocent flatmates each gave their account and that was it.

First, Knox and Sollecito lied. For example, they claimed that they ate dinner at 9, 9:30, perhaps 10. Pretty much everything they said was contradicted by evidence. They said that they slept until 10, but we know that they were awake at 6. When confronted with the lies, first Sollecito changed his story and implicated Knox. Then Knox changed her story and implicated Sollecito. Then, it seems that they re-united and returned to their original story of drugs, alcohol, and memory failure, claiming that they must have stayed at Sollecito's apartment.

They have squirmed for six years, still unable to provide a clear, coherent explanation of the night of the murder.

 

[OldSteve]

snipped:

Knox and Sollecito have admitted that they were so high on drugs and alcohol that their memories of the night of the murder have vanished. Rather than interpret orgy as orgy, try inserting the phrase: sexual assault involving several people.

CMIIW - but isn't that the only time their memories had vanished?
Love the way that happens in cases...

Memory seems amazingly clear when it came to Meredith being accidentally pricked by the knife.

 

[otto]

snipped:



CMIIW - but isn't that the only time their memories had vanished?
Love the way that happens in cases...

Memory seems amazingly clear when it came to Meredith being accidentally pricked by the knife.

Didn't Jodi Arias have a similar memory lapse? IIRC, it was somehow connected with the PTSD that she acquired as a result of murdering Travis ... kind of cart before horse situation with Arias.

 

[SMK]

I recall when originally reading about the duvet covering MK, and about AK being seen in the early morning buying cleaning supplies at the store which had just opened its doors, and the CCTV footage, and the postal police arriving before Sollecito had called, etc., --- and being sure they were guilty.

Then, the lone wolf theory, the story that the store owner let a year go by before coming forward, the CCTV clock being 10 minutes slow, etc. blew it all away.

So I ask in earnest: Did a PR campaign simply lie to make all that data seem irrelevant? Am truly asking, as I am sick of not knowing what is fact and what is fiction.

 

[whoanellie]

In my opinion there was a PR war waged by both sides. Given the willingness of the police and prosecutor to try the case in the media - using very unethical tactics, Amanda and her family would have been fools not to fight back.

 

[otto]

I recall when originally reading about the duvet covering MK, and about AK being seen in the early morning buying cleaning supplies at the store which had just opened its doors, and the CCTV footage, and the postal police arriving before Sollecito had called, etc., --- and being sure they were guilty.

Then, the lone wolf theory, the story that the store owner let a year go by before coming forward, the CCTV clock being 10 minutes slow, etc. blew it all away.

So I ask in earnest: Did a PR campaign simply lie to make all that data seem irrelevant? Am truly asking, as I am sick of not knowing what is fact and what is fiction.

It is very difficult to know how far and wide the PR campaign reaches. Yesterday, someone posted a link to this article: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...-win-for-american-accused-of-murder-in-italy/

CBS news should be respectable enough. The article is written on October 16, 2013. The article states that, according to the Conti and Vecchiotti report, the knife and related evidence (Meredith's DNA) have been "busted", "trashed", "dismissed" and deemed "unreliable. The article goes on to suggest that the prosecution is now basing the case entirely on the 36-I sample (currently being tested). The article also suggests that if 36-I DNA belongs to Knox, then the case should be thrown out. What about the crime scene evidence and circumstantial evidence? Apparently that should be completely ignored, at the very least it is ignored by the author of the article.

If that is responsible reporting, there is a serious problem somewhere. The Conti and Vecchiotti report has been heavily criticized and is pretty much the primary reason that the appeal was annulled. None of the conclusions of the report are accepted by the court. Yet, the CBS article uses that rejected report as the foundation for the points made in the article. How is that possible? Where does such inaccurate and un-researched reporting come from? Is this an example of PR propaganda, or is it a reflection of the absence of integrity in today's news reporters?

I just had a look at the comments below the article. There you read the two sides of the debate. On the one hand, several people attempt to reinforce that claim that the Conti and Vecchiotti report is valid, and on the other and, others attempt to clarify that the knife evidence is still accepted by the court regardless of the Conti and Vecchiotti report.

 

[otto]

In my opinion there was a PR war waged by both sides. Given the willingness of the police and prosecutor to try the case in the media - using very unethical tactics, Amanda and her family would have been fools not to fight back.

There's no problem when everyone presents the facts. The problem is that this is not how the Knox PR Firm has operated. The CBS article is a classic example of misrepresenting the facts in order to minimize the evidence and imply that the Italian justice system is simply "out to get" Knox. The CBS article implies that the only evidence in the case is a single piece of DNA that is on the knife and which is currently being tested. The results of that analysis have not yet been released, but the article implies that they have. Common sense should tell people that no one is ever convicted of murder on the basis of a single piece of untested DNA, yet in reading the CBS article, that is allegedly how the trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher was handled.