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

[OldSteve]

"In my previous statement I told a load of rubbish because Amanda had convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn't think about the inconsistencies."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568640/Suspect-statements-in-Kercher-murder-case.html

Gotta love the part about "I didn't think about the inconsistencies."
Its good they want to get their versions of the truth to be in sync with another. Does he realize how guilty that makes them out to be?! Least I say it - tell the truth, don't try to twist or manipulate it! There's only one version of what you did/saw, etc.

 

[Harmony 2]

07 Nov 2007

"[Raffaele Sollecito] said: "I have known Amanda for two weeks. From the night that I met her she started sleeping at my house.

... "[On November 1] At 9 pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner."

He goes on to say that Amanda returned to his house at around 1am and the couple went to bed, although he couldn't remember if they had sex.

He said she got up the next morning and went home for a shower at around 10.30am.

... "In my previous statement I told a load of rubbish because Amanda had convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn't think about the inconsistencies."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568640/Suspect-statements-in-Kercher-murder-case.html

Thanks for the link. He also admits that he called 121 after the arrival of the postal police.

It was my understanding that the interviews were not recorded. Who leaked these verbatim quotes and how did the telegraph get them? If the interviews were not recorded then how do we know these statements are accurate or correct?

Is the telegraph a tabloid newspaper?

BBM - yes, I am as well.
Do I think AK/RS guilty? - I am not sure.
Do I think AK/RS innocent - I am less sure.

After the Sandy Hook School killings - I'm not so dismissive of those who fantasize about evil things and killings...

As for how soon did AK learn of RS's interest in knives - well, considering he had a rather menacing one hanging over his bed, I cannot imagine the topic not coming up as she was looking up at the ceiling sometime while they were in bed together.

I wonder about the "love" between AK/RS ... did a personality change take place on her part? To that end, while it's nice to read the glowing reports of past friends, my interest is in hearing what friends (did she have any) whom she was actively involved with at the time of the murder had to say.

My understanding from watching and reading all the interviews was that they were her friends long before, during and after the events in Italy. Some of her friends even went there to testify on her behalf at the trial...

 

[otto]

It was my understanding that the interviews were not recorded. Who leaked these verbatim quotes and how did the telegraph get them? If the interviews were not recorded then how do we know these statements are accurate or correct?

Is the telegraph a tabloid newspaper?

My understanding is that by November 7, 2007, both Sollecito and Knox had provided statements to police. From the article: "Police said that Knox, when confronted by police with her boyfriend's evidence, admitted she had lied in previous interviews."

The content in the article is confirmed by Knox during trial. For example, in the article, it is written that Knox claimed that she met Patrick at the basketball court on the night of the murder. During trial testimony, Knox admits that she claimed that she met Patrick at the basketball court.

Regarding the source, per the article: "The following are extracts from police interviews with Amanda Knox and her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, in the murder case of Meredith Kercher, as printed in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera"

Police often make a statement to the media about new developments in a new investigation. Is there any reason to assume that police are lying when they do this?

The Telegraph is not a tabloid.

"The Daily Telegraph, Daily Telegraph, The [Credit: © Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2010]daily newspaper published in London and generally accounted, with The Times and The Guardian, as one of Britain’s “big three” quality newspapers.

Founded in 1855 as the Daily Telegraph and Courier, the paper was acquired later that year by Joseph Moses Levy who, with his son Edward Levy (later Edward Levy-Lawson), renamed it The Daily Telegraph, transformed it into London’s first penny paper, and built a large readership. The newspaper has consistently combined a high standard of reporting with the selection of interesting feature articles and editorial presentation. It takes a conservative, middle-class approach to comprehensive news coverage."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/149881/The-Daily-Telegraph

Regarding friends of Knox that testified at trial, I believe Paxton (don't remember her first name) testified as a character witness. I also recall that a couple of the language school instructors testified that Knox attended classes as expected.

 

[whoanellie]

The article in the Telegraph is simply republishing what was previously published in an Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. So we have statements from an unknown source presumably in the Italian police with or without direct knowledge of what was said in the interview rooms published in an Italian newspaper and then translated and republished in a British newspaper.

The whole question of whether the call came before or after the postal police arrived hinges on what is meant by "in the meantime". It could be Amanda told me to call the 121 but before I did the postal police arrived. It could also be that the call was made but postal police arrived before the regular police did. Given how much hearsay is involved not to mention potential translation issues I don't think the information published in the Telegraph proves anything.

When I was a child we would play a game called "telephone" that illustrates why this article is not "evidence"

 

[otto]

snipped:


I was trying to find if she had made any new friends while in Italy? CMIIW I get the impression she was consumed by her attraction to RS, that she closed herself off to others, so those how knew her, knew the way she was in the past, not what she like at the time of the murder...
Again, anyone CMIIW.

What does CMIIW mean?

Regarding friends in Italy, I think that people closed Knox off, or avoided her, rather than she closed them off. Other than the language school instructor, I don't think that anyone that knew Knox in Perugia was prepared to speak on her behalf.

1. Knox made friends with Patrick and got a job in his bar. We know what she did with that friendship.
2. She befriended the men that lived downstairs in the cottage and had a one night fling with one of them. We haven't heard anything else about him, so I think that was a short term friendship.
3. We know that Knox befriended Guede, that they had met in the plazas a couple of times and that they smoked hash or pot together in the downstairs flat. During trial, knowing that Guede participated in Meredith's murder, she stated that she was not afraid of him
4. Knox had a boyfriend in Seattle when she went to Perugia, but we know that she didn't value this relationship because she was intimate with several men shortly after arriving in Europe. In conversations with her roommates, she expressed feeling "guilt" regarding her relationships with her Seattle boyfriend and Sollecito
5. Her uncle in Germany had secured a job for her in Germany. An apartment was available for the person that filled the position. Knox showed up for the job for one or two days, then said she didn't feel well, and didn't go back. She stayed in the apartment for the time that she should have been working. I doubt she made any friends at that time.
6. Knox was introduced to Meredith's friends, but after a couple of weeks, they didn't want to spend time with her. Laura, Filomina and Meredith all attended parties on Halloween and, although Knox wanted to join Meredith and her friends, she was not invited. (p72 Massei)
7. Knox met Sollecito and immediately began staying with him at his apartment.

Generally speaking, Knox appears to have gravitated towards people that used illegal drugs, and to have intimate relationships with men that she didn't know. Healthier relationships, such as those with Laura, Filomina, Meredith and her friends, were short term and did not appear to be going anywhere.

"After inviting Knox, a Jesuit-educated student, to live with her and two other English students in their cottage, Meredith Kercher soon began having reservations about Knox, particularly about her bringing "strange men" to the house."

http://www.theweek.co.uk/film/amanda-knox/55260/amanda-knox-film-beckinsale-joins-cast#ixzz2hzmqxFIl

 

[OldSteve]

So Steve, are you now leaning towards her being guilty? Just wondering, as I do recall when you were a huge supporter of her and Raffaele. If so, what changed your mind? I have more questions now, also, than I used to. ETA: Not that I think she is guilty, just that I am more open to seeing both sides now.

Thinking more and BBM - it's the changing of their stories that bothers me now. The truth is just that.

Okay, one can add more facts to an account as they might be recalled, but when a person presents different versions of what took place - I see that as indicative of guilt.

Add to when those involved in a crime seek to coordinate their account of events in a way that goes beyond just filling in details of an original account - once again I see that as indication of guilt.

In some cases that's all I would need to say "guilty".

Good forensics are important, .. but when there are only minute DNA traces and/or lots of other details that can be explained in different ways and labored over for hours upon hours in a trial (ha, here on WS too) it becomes a way of confusing and using science to draw attention away from human behavior.

 

[otto]

The article in the Telegraph is simply republishing what was previously published in an Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. So we have statements from an unknown source presumably in the Italian police with or without direct knowledge of what was said in the interview rooms published in an Italian newspaper and then translated and republished in a British newspaper.

The whole question of whether the call came before or after the postal police arrived hinges on what is meant by "in the meantime". It could be Amanda told me to call the 121 but before I did the postal police arrived. It could also be that the call was made but postal police arrived before the regular police did. Given how much hearsay is involved not to mention potential translation issues I don't think the information published in the Telegraph proves anything.

When I was a child we would play a game called "telephone" that illustrates why this article is not "evidence"

Are you thinking that because the article was translated from Italian to English, the facts were altered, yet at the same time the facts in the Telegraph article were confirmed by Knox at trial?

It seems to me that in order for Knox to be innocent, we have to ignore the circumstantial evidence, agree that all the DNA evidence specific to Sollecito/Knox (but not Guede) is a result of error, and believe that police statements are, in the words of Sollecito, "a load of rubbish"?

 

[SMK]

BBM - yes, I am as well.
Do I think AK/RS guilty? - I am not sure.
Do I think AK/RS innocent - I am less sure.

After the Sandy Hook School killings - I'm not so dismissive of those who fantasize about evil things and killings...

As for how soon did AK learn of RS's interest in knives - well, considering he had a rather menacing one hanging over his bed, I cannot imagine the topic not coming up as she was looking up at the ceiling sometime while they were in bed together.

I wonder about the "love" between AK/RS ... did a personality change take place on her part? To that end, while it's nice to read the glowing reports of past friends, my interest is in hearing what friends (did she have any) whom she was actively involved with at the time of the murder had to say.

Yes, those are all good questions. I also felt that after Hellman was overturned, that it was important to entertain the idea that the Italian police and courts MIGHT be in earnest, and not simply driven by animus or a desire to show that they are in the right. As stated, I am not convinced of her guilt by any means, but I am willing at least to try and see if the other side might have anything which is valid. IF she is innocent, then I hope this nightmare will end for her. If she played a role in the death, then I hope that can be proven. But I wonder if anything will ever be clear about this case...

 

[Footwarrior]

The article in the Telegraph is simply republishing what was previously published in an Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. So we have statements from an unknown source presumably in the Italian police with or without direct knowledge of what was said in the interview rooms published in an Italian newspaper and then translated and republished in a British newspaper.

The whole question of whether the call came before or after the postal police arrived hinges on what is meant by "in the meantime". It could be Amanda told me to call the 121 but before I did the postal police arrived. It could also be that the call was made but postal police arrived before the regular police did. Given how much hearsay is involved not to mention potential translation issues I don't think the information published in the Telegraph proves anything.

When I was a child we would play a game called "telephone" that illustrates why this article is not "evidence"

The Italian emergency number is 112. This should be a clue that the report is garbled.

 

[otto]

The Italian emergency number is 112. This should be a clue that the report is garbled.

If Sollecito said 121 instead of 112, I guess it must be untrue that Knox told police on November 6 that she met Patrick at the basketball court and then they went together to the cottage, where he murdered Meredith. It's shocking that she admitted this during the trial if it wasn't true.

 

[SMK]

Thinking more and BBM - it's the changing of their stories that bothers me now. The truth is just that.

Okay, one can add more facts to an account as they might be recalled, but when a person presents different versions of what took place - I see that as indicative of guilt.

Add to when those involved in a crime seek to coordinate their account of events in a way that goes beyond just filling in details of an original account - once again I see that as indication of guilt.

In some cases that's all I would need to say "guilty".

Good forensics are important, .. but when there are only minute DNA traces and/or lots of other details that can be explained in different ways and labored over for hours upon hours in a trial (ha, here on WS too) it becomes a way of confusing and using science to draw attention away from human behavior.

Excellent point. I too believe that there has been an over-'science-ification' that draws away from human behavior and intuition. There is some truth to the PR spin, from what I have been finding in the media. Again, does not mean I believe they are guilty, but that it should not be a "done deal" that they are innocent.

 

[whoanellie]

Excellent point. I too believe that there has been an over-'science-ification' that draws away from human behavior and intuition. There is some truth to the PR spin, from what I have been finding in the media. Again, does not mean I believe they are guilty, but that it should not be a "done deal" that they are innocent.

It's interesting that you say this because this has been a major factor in my thinking about the case - the extent to which we can rely on purely 'scientific' evidence as opposed to looking at how the various human beings in this case behaved and how their behaviour fits with our own experience and intuition. As a scientist I have a healthy skepticism about the reliability of any and all scientific data.

To me the one piece of evidence that points to guilt is the DNA match for Meredith on the knife in Sollecito's apartment. There are however significant scientific issues even with that data.

On the other hand for all of the attempts to microanalyze the behavior of Knox and Sollecito over the years for me there is absolutely nothing that stands up as evidence of their involvement in the death of Meredith. Either people are way overanalyzing their behavior and seeing conciousness of guilt that isn't there OR the evidence is based on things said or done by Knox and Sollecito under conditions of extreme stress. We know based on both scientific studies and anecdotal evidence that well-meaning innocent people can give false confessions and misleading information to police.

At the same time, my intuition and my experience tell me that it would be extremely unusual for them to have been involved in the murder. Scientists like to say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." To me the claim that Knox and Sollecito committed or participated in this murder is an extraordinary claim. I've yet to hear a convincing "story" to explain to me how and more importantly why they got involved in the death of Meredith. THis is especially true given that there is a simple explanation, consistent with typical human experience, for who killed Meredith. It is absolutely not necessary to invoke the extraordinary.

For me the "behavioral" data pointing towards innocence greatly outweighs the weak "scientific" data pointing towards guilt.

 

[SMK]

It's interesting that you say this because this has been a major factor in my thinking about the case - the extent to which we can rely on purely 'scientific' evidence as opposed to looking at how the various human beings in this case behaved and how their behaviour fits with our own experience and intuition. As a scientist I have a healthy skepticism about the reliability of any and all scientific data.

To me the one piece of evidence that points to guilt is the DNA match for Meredith on the knife in Sollecito's apartment. There are however significant scientific issues even with that data.

On the other hand for all of the attempts to microanalyze the behavior of Knox and Sollecito over the years for me there is absolutely nothing that stands up as evidence of their involvement in the death of Meredith. Either people are way overanalyzing their behavior and seeing conciousness of guilt that isn't there OR the evidence is based on things said or done by Knox and Sollecito under conditions of extreme stress. We know based on both scientific studies and anecdotal evidence that well-meaning innocent people can give false confessions and misleading information to police.

At the same time, my intuition and my experience tell me that it would be extremely unusual for them to have been involved in the murder. Scientists like to say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." To me the claim that Knox and Sollecito committed or participated in this murder is an extraordinary claim. I've yet to hear a convincing "story" to explain to me how and more importantly why they got involved in the death of Meredith. THis is especially true given that there is a simple explanation, consistent with typical human experience, for who killed Meredith. It is absolutely not necessary to invoke the extraordinary.

For me the "behavioral" data pointing towards innocence greatly outweighs the weak "scientific" data pointing towards guilt.

Your points are extremely well taken. And well set forth. I do agree, it is an extraordinary claim that AK and RS were involved in MK's murder, and thus it is extremely difficult if not impossible to prove.

That said, I do not believe it is out of the realm of possibility that they were involved. Stranger things have occurred, and a walk through true crime literature will show just how odd the myriad of causes or reasons are for crimes. But as you note, this is a court of justice we are dealing with, and crimes must be proven to have been committed by defendants, lest the innocent are locked away.

On the other hand, what do you make of the camp who believe (such as on TJMK site, whose posters include attorneys, and other educated individuals) that there is more than enough scientific proof to convict?

 

[OldSteve]

What does CMIIW mean?

Regarding friends in Italy, I think that people closed Knox off, or avoided her, rather than she closed them off. Other than the language school instructor, I don't think that anyone that knew Knox in Perugia was prepared to speak on her behalf.

1. Knox made friends with Patrick and got a job in his bar. We know what she did with that friendship.
2. She befriended the men that lived downstairs in the cottage and had a one night fling with one of them. We haven't heard anything else about him, so I think that was a short term friendship.
3. We know that Knox befriended Guede, that they had met in the plazas a couple of times and that they smoked hash or pot together in the downstairs flat. During trial, knowing that Guede participated in Meredith's murder, she stated that she was not afraid of him
4. Knox had a boyfriend in Seattle when she went to Perugia, but we know that she didn't value this relationship because she was intimate with several men shortly after arriving in Europe. In conversations with her roommates, she expressed feeling "guilt" regarding her relationships with her Seattle boyfriend and Sollecito
5. Her uncle in Germany had secured a job for her in Germany. An apartment was available for the person that filled the position. Knox showed up for the job for one or two days, then said she didn't feel well, and didn't go back. She stayed in the apartment for the time that she should have been working. I doubt she made any friends at that time.
6. Knox was introduced to Meredith's friends, but after a couple of weeks, they didn't want to spend time with her. Laura, Filomina and Meredith all attended parties on Halloween and, although Knox wanted to join Meredith and her friends, she was not invited. (p72 Massei)
7. Knox met Sollecito and immediately began staying with him at his apartment.

Generally speaking, Knox appears to have gravitated towards people that used illegal drugs, and to have intimate relationships with men that she didn't know. Healthier relationships, such as those with Laura, Filomina, Meredith and her friends, were short term and did not appear to be going anywhere.

"After inviting Knox, a Jesuit-educated student, to live with her and two other English students in their cottage, Meredith Kercher soon began having reservations about Knox, particularly about her bringing "strange men" to the house."

http://www.theweek.co.uk/film/amanda-knox/55260/amanda-knox-film-beckinsale-joins-cast#ixzz2hzmqxFIl

Well stated! Excellent actually!

As for what CMIIW means - "Correct Me If I'm Wrong"

Here's a handy acronym lookup site:
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/cmiiw

 

[OldSteve]

Saw this posted on another thread - Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender (DARVO) and thought how it might apply here...

http://pages.uoregon.edu/dynamic/jjf/defineDARVO.html

 

[OldSteve]

Amanda Knox says she is paying for Italian police mistakes -

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/15/us-italy-knox-idUSBRE99E0WI20131015

"They put a mask on me, they put evil on me, but they didn't try to see who I really was," she said.

BBM - I find the use of the word "was" interesting... okay, maybe nitpicking, but does that denote she recognizes her personality was different then and now?

 

[LinasK]

It's interesting that you say this because this has been a major factor in my thinking about the case - the extent to which we can rely on purely 'scientific' evidence as opposed to looking at how the various human beings in this case behaved and how their behaviour fits with our own experience and intuition. As a scientist I have a healthy skepticism about the reliability of any and all scientific data.

To me the one piece of evidence that points to guilt is the DNA match for Meredith on the knife in Sollecito's apartment. There are however significant scientific issues even with that data.

On the other hand for all of the attempts to microanalyze the behavior of Knox and Sollecito over the years for me there is absolutely nothing that stands up as evidence of their involvement in the death of Meredith. Either people are way overanalyzing their behavior and seeing conciousness of guilt that isn't there OR the evidence is based on things said or done by Knox and Sollecito under conditions of extreme stress. We know based on both scientific studies and anecdotal evidence that well-meaning innocent people can give false confessions and misleading information to police.

At the same time, my intuition and my experience tell me that it would be extremely unusual for them to have been involved in the murder. Scientists like to say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." To me the claim that Knox and Sollecito committed or participated in this murder is an extraordinary claim. I've yet to hear a convincing "story" to explain to me how and more importantly why they got involved in the death of Meredith. THis is especially true given that there is a simple explanation, consistent with typical human experience, for who killed Meredith. It is absolutely not necessary to invoke the extraordinary.

For me the "behavioral" data pointing towards innocence greatly outweighs the weak "scientific" data pointing towards guilt.

Ummm, I think their behavior post-murder strongly points toward guilt!!

 

[Nova]

That site only shows a percentage of DNA exoneration cases. That is not what we are looking for.


http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/...=display_arch&article_id=1925&issue_id=102009

Ranging from 0.001% to 0.04% I consider rare. Then include factors such as Knox's age, intelligence, the length of the questioning and this number will only be lower. You can't state that a false confession is the most probable with such low numbers. Same for contamination cases. Then start combining these rare events. It is simply not realistic to explain away all the evidence with these rare phenomena.

"Police Chief Magazine"? Yeah, there's an unbiased source. :floorlaugh:

The Innocence Project finds that of convicted felons exonerated by DNA, etc., a full 1 in 4 have been previously coerced into confessing. That's a figure that should alarm us all.

But if you are just taking the police at their word, then I'm not surprised you are so insistent on the guilt of AK and RS.

 

[Nova]

Thanks for the link. He also admits that he called 121 after the arrival of the postal police.

"in the meantime" can mean "before the carabinieri arrived" as well as "before I made the call".

This cherry-picking of partial phrases out of context gets really tiresome. From now on, I'm going to resist the impulse to correct each and every distortion of the record.

 

[Nova]

Uh oh! Im relatively new but didnt RS later say he had lied and he was not with AK? Am I mixed up? Help! Is there a link to RS's proclivities somewhere? TIA!

Yes, he made that statement after he was told that AK had sold him out and implicating him in her statement.

Later--after coerced testimony and language problems were cleared up--both he and AK basically returned to their original statements.