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

[A.D.A McCoy]

Wearing the same underwear for two or more days would be on MY mind! I don't care how many people had died.

Couldn't you just wash them?

 

[Footwarrior]

Couldn't you just wash them?

To avoid the horrors of going to a store and buying new underwear?

:banghead:

Amanda was locked outside of her apartment for an indefinite time. She has no clothes other than the ones she was wearing when the body was discovered.

 

[Madeleine74]

One of my first jobs out of college was working in the bra and bodyshaper buying department at Macy's in California. And what I learned was that thong underwear is seen by many women as a basic type of underwear, not used for sex purposes, but used because many women, find them to be comfortable and they don't show lines in clothes. Has nothing to do with sex per se. Its not like Amanda was buying merry widows and garters and shopping at Fredericks of Hollywood. The statistics on how women buy and wear different types of underwear is fairly well understood in retail circles, especially by large department store conglomerates.

You can't look at Amanda and know what was going on inside of her mind. She needed underwear, she purchased underwear.

 

[aa9511]

That's an interesting point ... that now a "turned off" cell phone can be interpreted as involvement in a crime. When cell phones first became popular, the cell phone had to remain on, and ping off a cell tower to implicate someone in a crime. Now everyone has a cell phone and everyone uses it 100% of the time ... to the extent that having the phone turned off is now suspicious. I find that to be an interesting paradigm shift.

bbm

Yeah, it is interesting, especially since we didn't even have cell phones not too long ago!! Exactly, everyone uses them and has them on all the time now. Especially with texting now, smartphones, etc.., everyone even has them in their hand all the time.
That's what convinced me in the Levi Chavez case, he turned his phone off right before the murder occurred. That, in addition to the other evidence, was very convincing.

 

[Madeleine74]

I got my first cellphone in 1994. Cell phones been around for a fairly long time. What's new is wifi integrated into the cell phone, and the smartphone technology which allows cellphone to be more like a computer. Also the number of cell towers, data plans, infrastructure and lower costs per phone call and cheap phones and competition allow for much wider and common use. A lot has changed in the last 10 yrs.

 

[aa9511]

BBM: Yep, not one cent ... :banghead: Knox is totally ignoring Patrick Lumumba -- and -- the court order !

I'm glad you didn't buy Knox's book Waiting to Be Sold :doh: I mean Waiting to Be Heard ...

It is a HUGE flop ...

:twocents:

I can't stand how she tries to be so "complex" and deep and thoughtful (in interviews and what she's said about her time in prison, etc..)....you know, having that brilliant writer's mind and all. It's like she thinks she's so above everybody in the intelligence category.

 

[sherlockh]

Quoting noted criminal profiler John Douglas:

Some have claimed that the Duvet covering Meredith proves her attacker was female. Here is what John Douglas had to say about that theory:

Snipped. Nobody said female. Covering a body is a sign that the killer is somebody close to the victim. Nancy Grace knows. John Douglas knows, but the Ramsey/Knox family paid him so he 'forgot'.

GRACE: The body was covered in a blanket, which is very unusual. Random murder very rarely involves covering up the body. And that is almost an instinctual act. If you`ve ever seen a dog walk around in a circle before it sits down, that`s instinct bred from millions of years. Humans, when they kill a loved one or an acquaintance, very often will cover up the body with a blanket, with leaves, with trash, with paper, with boxes, with something. You very rarely see the shrouding of a body that is stranger on stranger.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1307/26/ng.01.html

 

[TartLemon]

It's very evident Amanda's intent in the lingerie boutique. She was shopping for seductive costuming.

 

[otto]

To avoid the horrors of going to a store and buying new underwear?

:banghead:

Amanda was locked outside of her apartment for an indefinite time. She has no clothes other than the ones she was wearing when the body was discovered.

Amanda, Laura, Filomina and three or four residents from the downstairs flat were all prevented from entering the cottage after the murder. How does that relate to canoodling in a lingerie department two days after Meredith was murdered?

 

[aa9511]

Anyone who still believes Amanda is "totally innocent", i.e. completely uninvolved, should consider the following:

There is an old police interrogation tactic/trick: You tell the suspect that evidence has been found that totally shoots down the story they have been giving, and see what the suspect does (the "evidence" can be real or just a lie ). Generally an innocent suspect will accuse them of lying or fabricating the evidence, stick to their story and perhaps demand a lawyer. A guilty suspect might shut up and lawyer up if they were savvy, but many will simply change their story to incorporate the newly found evidence. This creates a situation where the suspect must admit to lying at first then they must come up with an entirely new version of events on the fly. It's very hard to keep an "evolving" story straight and the suspect has no way to communicate to anyone else involved as to how their story has changed. This is what happened to AK and RS.







When AK was informed that RS was now claiming that she had left his apartment that evening, AK immediately admitted she had and her story "evolved" into the claim that PL was there and committed the murder.

When RS was told that MK's DNA was fond on his kitchen knife, he immediately claimed that MK had been in his apartment and cut herself preparing food. He later conceded that this was a lie.

You can argue that AK didn't speak Italian very well and could be expected to be intimidated by a foreign legal process but RS was a well educated Italian whose sister was a police Lt. He should have held up to that sort of questioning.

Think about it.

Yes, good point! The changed stories is just too much. And I do not believe Amanda, that she was under so much pressure from the questioning that she gave,in a sense, a false confession. I could understand that if they had her there under intense questioning for many, many hours....but from what I read, she pretty much immediately changed her story after being told what RS said and that she was not questioning for an unusual amount of time. Why did she immediately change her story? Wouldn't an innocent person have kept repeating the truth and then changed their story later, after hours and hours of questioning and pressure?

 

[redheadedgal]

I have no idea if it was the underwear, but the fact is that they were caught on camera and you could hear them literally say it.

do you have an msm link to support this?

b/c what i've read, at multiple sites is this:

<modsnip>

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html

False claims fueled what quickly became a sexual obsession that overwhelmed every media report. One story in particular sent the obsession into overdrive. It was reported that Amanda went to a lingerie shop with Raffaele shortly after the murder to by a g-string. Readers were told they were seen laughing and talking about "wild" sex in the store. As it turns out, the witness claiming to hear the sex talk didn't speak any English. Amanda and Raffaele just so happened to be speaking English in the store. We would later find out that the witness was paid by a tabloid. Even worse, the store wasn't even a lingerie shop. Elizabeth Vargas, an ABC reporter, reported on the Oprah Winfrey show that she visited the store and observed that they didn't even sell the sexy lingerie that was described in the media. She described the store as being similar to a Target store in the United States. Unfortunately, the security camera footage that showed a brief moment when Amanda smiled at Raffaele was all the media needed to propel the lie around the globe.

http://www.broowaha.com/articles/9529/amanda-knox-a-case-dominated-by-sexual-obsession-

so, nothing about being "literally" heard saying this on camera.

 

[redheadedgal]

if your mother, father, brother, husband etc, or you were on trial, would you still be okay with these evidence collection/testing techniques? would your lawyer?

sherlockh -- you never answered ??

 

[rose222]

•“Knox and Sollecito were seen laughing as they hold up various G-strings. In one still shot taken from the footage, Raffaele is standing behind Amanda with his hands on her hips and his groin pressed into her. It was the same day as the candle light vigil memorial for Meredith, a few days after her murder.” (Excerpt from the book Angel Face by Barbie Nadeau.)

As many have mentioned it is Knox's flirty behaviour at the underwear store that raised red flags. I don't care if she went to buy underwear or bread and water for nourishment. No normal person with a little bit of heart would feel like flirting and laughing post-murder. I don't care if she loves to have s-x and if she has had a 100 partners (although an interest in violent s-x would concern me).

What I care about is that a person doesn't give several versions of what actually happened on the night of the murder. I care about the evidence. And yes sometimes if the evidence is compelling then I do care about the behaviour of the accused as well. We were all shocked when Casey spent the night with Tony after Caylee was killed. We were disgusted when she bought beer and lingerie in the weeks after Caylee's death. Same with Scott Peterson. Behaviour IS revealing and that includes Knox's as well.

 

[Footwarrior]

Never mind that the store didn't sell G strings.

 

[sherlockh]

do you have an msm link to support this?

b/c what i've read, at multiple sites is this:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html

http://www.broowaha.com/articles/9529/amanda-knox-a-case-dominated-by-sexual-obsession-

so, nothing about being "literally" heard saying this on camera.

Ok thanks. So it was the shopkeeper who 'literally' heard it. My mistake.

 

[sherlockh]

sherlockh -- you never answered ??

Oh sorry, didn't see it. Yes, I am all for perfect investigations but that doesn't mean that if somebody 'farts' we just toss all the evidence and let the killers walk free.

 

[aa9511]

I went back to an old thread that was linked to earlier in the thread, and found a link there to an article in, I believe, Daily Mail, where Patrick Lumumbo is taking about Amanda's personality and general weird-ness. I just shivered when he said something about how when Amanda met his wife, she gave her a oold stare and had her nose up, and Patrick knew she was just threatened by any woman. WHERE HAVE WE SEEN THAT BEFORE?? That is classic Jodi Arias.

I was also struck by how different she was in the interviews she's done recently....she does not seem the way she's been portrayed at all. She seemed very mature and responsible. Just goes to show that we never know what is going on with a person or who a person really is.

What I'm trying to say is, we should just look at the circumstances in the case and not try to be clouded by an image of Amanda we have in our heads, and that goes for BOTH sides, innocent and guilty. I think that those who are convinced she's innocent, you have an "innocent Amanda" view of her in your heads, and so it's easier to explain away things like the staged break-in and like the fact that someone came back to the house and did a very obvious staging of the scene. It does not make logical sense that Rudy Guede, who just murdered Meredith, would hang around the house or even more illogical, that he would come back to he house and do staging. The logical thing is he would want to get the **** outta there before someone caught him.

I do not know whether Raffaelo and Amanda participated in the actual murder. But I have no doubt that they did the staging, and that they are lying about their version of what they were doing that night.

 

[redheadedgal]

Covering a body is a sign that the killer is somebody close to the victim. Nancy Grace knows. John Douglas knows, but the Ramsey/Knox family paid him so he 'forgot'.

GRACE: The body was covered in a blanket, which is very unusual. Random murder very rarely involves covering up the body. And that is almost an instinctual act. If you`ve ever seen a dog walk around in a circle before it sits down, that`s instinct bred from millions of years. Humans, when they kill a loved one or an acquaintance, very often will cover up the body with a blanket, with leaves, with trash, with paper, with boxes, with something. You very rarely see the shrouding of a body that is stranger on stranger.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1307/26/ng.01.html

NG mentions that "you rarely see the shrouding of a body that is stranger on stranger" and this is supposed to suggest AK was involved? whaat?

RG and MK weren't "strangers":

<modsnip>

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Rudy_Hermann_Guede

Returning home at 2 am one night in mid October, Knox, Kercher, Giacomo and another basement resident met Rudy Guede. The Italians knew Guede from playing basketball with him. Guede, who had been served by Knox at her part-time bar job days earlier, attached himself to the group and asked about Knox. He was invited into the basement and talked about her with the Italians. They all expressed the opinion she was attractive. Knox and then Kercher joined them and smoked hashish

Murder of Meredith Kercher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[redheadedgal]

Ok thanks. So it was the shopkeeper who 'literally' heard it. My mistake.

Oh sorry, didn't see it. Yes, I am all for perfect investigations but that doesn't mean that if somebody 'farts' we just toss all the evidence and let the killers walk free.

why all the twisting of evidence?

the shopkeeper didn't understand english and was paid by a tabloid for his "scoop".

i didn't see "farting" on the video.

 

[sherlockh]

NG mentions that "you rarely see the shrouding of a body that is stranger on stranger" and this is supposed to suggest AK was involved? whaat?

RG and MK weren't "strangers":

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Rudy_Hermann_Guede

Murder of Meredith Kercher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I actually suggested it does not have to be a sign of a female killer but a sign of somebody close to the victim. Between RG and AK, Knox was much closer to the victim. RG and MK knew each other (just like RG and AK knew each other) but there is no sign that RG spread out the blanket even though he had blood on his shoes. The covering of the body was actually used by judge Massei as a mitigating factor. He considered it a sign of remorse. So make of it what you want