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

[whoanellie]

Wow. As a fellow unpopular in secondary school kind of girl, that is a scary idea to me.

I don't think you can go by that at all. There are many reasons why someone is outcast in school. I think murderous nature is probably one of the less frequent.

Count me as one of the unpopular, strange, awkward, "off" kids in high school. Little did I know that I too would turn into a homicidal maniac.:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[aa9511]

I'd like to hear from both sides on this. This has been a sticking point towards innocence for me. If guilty, why did RS never roll on AK? He was offered a plea deal. He could have testified against Amanda and received a much lighter sentence, but he never budged.

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.

 

[aa9511]

Hi Linda:seeya: He didn't know they'd get a new trial though. He thought he was in jail for life, right? So he rolled the dice and lost. Even after they were granted a new trial he didn't turn on her.

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

 

[otto]

Using PCR incredibly small amounts of DNA can be amplified for further testing. As I understand it the main issue isn't whether there was enough DNA to do the test, the issue is was the amount of DNA so small as to raise serious questions of contamination and secondary/tertiary transfer. This is particularily true given that there was - to my understanding - no blood or other human tissue found on the knife.

The high sensitivity of the forensic DNA testing actually increases the chance that random extraneous DNA will be amplified and identified. Outliers are fact of life in most areas of science.

You raise a very good question about why the DNA results for Guede would be more reliable than those for Knox or Sollecito. I haven't seen any of the data but I wonder if the answer may lie in the relative amounts of DNA found from each of them. That's the 1st place I would look for answers to that question.

DNA analysis is like fingerprint analysis in the sense that it had to be tested and explained many times before it was accepted by the courts as a recognized science. Both were accepted. That is not to say that there cannot be problems with the science, but to say that those problems are so rare that the science can be accepted unless there is evidence of a problem.

What we have regarding the analysis of DNA in this case is that all the problems are raised, but there is no evidence of any of the problems occurring with Meredith's DNA on the blade of the knife. It's merely the hypothesis of the problems. The fact that contamination can occur, or that LCN DNA is inaccurate, is true of every piece of DNA that is collected. However, in this case, the LCN DNA is in fact a match to Meredith's DNA, and all scientists that have thus far analyzed that LCN DNA have concluded that it is a match for Meredith. On what basis can it be claimed that the LCN DNA is not valid when those that analyzed the sample, and those analyzed the results, all arrived at the same conclusion that it matches Meredith? Since that cannot be challenged, what is challenged is the science itself. That is, it's suggested that LCN DNA should never be accepted by any court. We have non-experts with no access to the evidence claiming that tools used by experts are not valid even though similar evidence identified using similar tools is accepted by many courts.

Next, we have the contamination argument. Contamination is always possible, but it must be demonstrated that it could have happened for it to be viewed as a valid argument. It is not sufficient to claim "well, it can happen, therefore we should never accept DNA evidence." That seems to be the argument here. If the possibility of contamination, without further explanation, is sufficient to reject DNA evidence, then it should never be accepted by any court. That isn't how it works.

 

[aa9511]

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!

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!

 

[otto]

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!

We hear over and over again that Knox's DNA was not found in Meredith's bedroom. People seem to use that as evidence that Knox was never in the bedroom. Fair enough. The problem with that is that Knox's bedroom lamp, the only source of light in her bedroom, was missing. Where was it found ... on the floor of Meredith's bedroom. Now we have a situation where there was no evidence of Knox in Meredith's bedroom and no evidence of Knox on the only light source that she had in her bedroom. How is that possible. On the one hand, the absence of DNA is presented as evidence of innocence, and on the other hand, the absence of DNA on Knox's lamp in Meredith's bedroom raises a lot of questions. That absence of Knox's DNA on her lamp in Meredith's bedroom undermines the claims that no DNA implies innocence.

 

[aa9511]

Wow. As a fellow unpopular in secondary school kind of girl, that is a scary idea to me.

I don't think you can go by that at all. There are many reasons why someone is outcast in school. I think murderous nature is probably one of the less frequent.

I could say to that, how many of those girls do you know who were in any way, even tangentiallyinvolved in a gruesome murder involving a woman being stabbed to death?

Amanda was (at the least) tangentially involved in this. Probably one in (very big number) chances of that, yet it also happened that by chance she seemed to have a hard time connecting with females. The chances of those two statistics combining is probably very very very very small.

I see I need a PhD in criminology and statistics now.

 

[Coldpizza]

Attention please

The subtle digs and veiled references to other members needs to STOP. Agree to disagree and move on or use the ignore feature. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/profile.php?do=ignorelist

If you have an opinion then state it's your opinion, if you are posting as fact then provide a link to back it up.

:tyou:

 

[aa9511]

No, but we (this applies to me as well and I don't want to make it personal) would have to know at least several people falsely accused and several more rightly accused of murder in order to make a comparison. And even THAT wouldn't provide a sample large enough to escape the margin of error.

I, for one, don't know anyone who's ever been in AK's situation. So on what evidence would I base an opinion of her speech?

Common sense and "personal experience" must be used with caution.

Personally, I come from a family where members aren't comfortable expressing sentiment and a comment such as AK's reported "she effing bled to death" (IIRC) wouldn't surprise me in the least. And yet nobody in my family has ever been suspected of murder.

bbm

As I said in my last post, it's the chances of it all coming together that are extremelllllllyyyyyy low. All of it coming together for one person. I am not going to list each inconsistency and each "quirk" that many noticed about her. So either the small small chances of individual things happening all decided to get together on that infamous night for this one person Amanda, or it's the much simpler explanation of she's guilty.

 

[aa9511]

So did ALL the unpopular boys and girls in Perugia kill Ms. Kircher, or just these two?

Yesss, see exactly that! How is it that out of ALLLLLLLLLLLLLL the "quirky" boys and girls in Perugia and in the world, it happened to be THESE TWO who happened to be involved, even tangentially, in this murder.

 

[aa9511]

Sorry, but I don't know what you mean: cartwheels are proof of nothing (unless you or Perugia LE can produce some data). AK sat around a lot for five days and then she did some stretching. So?

Most of the other supposed "behavioral evidence" (such as the buying of the bleach) has turned out to be untrue.

The OP's point was that AK and RS aren't accused of killing someone for her money or to settle a grudge; they are accused of participating in a satanic (small s) orgy of sex and violence. That's an extraordinary event and buying underwear is not proof of participation.

We don't have to buy the prosecutor's idea of what the reason was for the murder. In that case, we could also say what was Rudy G's reason for stabbing her brutally so many times to kill her? He could have accomplished the task in much fewer stabs, especially if one was to the neck.

We do not even know Rudy G's motivation, since there is no proof of any real burglary taking place. Likewise, we do not have to know the exact motivation for RS and AK, either. It doesn't mean that Rudy G didn't do it. The same logic can be extended to RS and AK. Just because we don't know the exact motivations, doesn't mean we can't still conclude that they were involved.

 

[aa9511]

With respect, I don't believe I've ever questioned anyone's claim of what they do in real life. I always take such claims at face value, knowing they can't be proven without revealing one's true identity.

If I made some extraordinary claim relevant to the case--such as claiming to be AK's attorney--then some offer of proof might be demanded. But that's hardly what I claimed; I merely I said I have a lot of experience of creative writing from kids the age of Amanda Knox.

bbm

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh: Nova, you made me laugh on this one.....LOL! Nice to ease the tension on here every once in a while, it feels good! So thanks for that

 

[Sonata]

I think one of the point that bugs me, is this:

- I don't doubt RG's involvement
- It is possible that there were more people involved
- It seems highly unlikely that those people are AK and RS given that they don't seem to say anything about RG's involvement (wouldn't they pin it on him if at all possible?)
- RG didn't try to pin it on them until he knew they had become involved

I think what I'm trying to say is that I don't think the dynamics reflect a 3-way killing between those specific people. Just musings really. Thoughts?

 

[aa9511]

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.

bbm

Nova, to be honest, I think....I have to put this politically correct way.....that those who support the belief of AK and RS's innocence in this case and those who support the belief of AK and RS's guilt in this case are pretty equal in numbers on here.
So you can see how any one of us could feel the same sentiment you expressed at some point or another.

 

[Sonata]

We do not even know Rudy G's motivation, since there is no proof of any real burglary taking place. Likewise, we do not have to know the exact motivation for RS and AK, either. It doesn't mean that Rudy G didn't do it. The same logic can be extended to RS and AK. Just because we don't know the exact motivations, doesn't mean we can't still conclude that they were involved.

I'd personally say the missing money and phones is proof of an actual burglary.

I think I know what you're getting at though. That it wasn't a burglary gone wrong?

This is one of those aspects of the case that I just don't feel sold on either way.

I'm also still convinced that there was more people than RG and MK there that night. Still think Kokomani is suspect.

 

[Sonata]

I could say to that, how many of those girls do you know who were in any way, even tangentiallyinvolved in a gruesome murder involving a woman being stabbed to death?

Amanda was (at the least) tangentially involved in this. Probably one in (very big number) chances of that, yet it also happened that by chance she seemed to have a hard time connecting with females. The chances of those two statistics combining is probably very very very very small.

I see I need a PhD in criminology and statistics now.

While that is true, I think it's a small chance of being tangentially involved in a murder plus any other fact about yourself! For example, it's unlikely you would be involved in a murder and allergic to corn. But that doesn't correlate to potential guilt. The tangential involvement does, obviously, but the corn allergy has nothing to do with it. See what I'm saying?

 

[aa9511]

Regarding whether Meredith's friends could sense that something was "off" with Knox, I think they could. Where I come from, if someone were to suddenly start singing loudly in the middle of a restaurant during dinner, that would result in everyone wanting to keep an eye on the odd person. I'm sure that many are prepared to debate that because Knox did it, it is completely normal, but it isn't. Just like flipping cartwheels at a police station during a murder investigation ... because Knox did it, people claim that it is completely normal, but it isn't.

Thank you Otto! Your post said it perfectly.

If 1 out of 1000 people do something, I would not put it in the "normal" category.

Should the other 999 people change their accepted "norm" and take on the 1 person's "norm"? That does not make sense.

I am not saying that because she did this odd behavior or that odd behavior, that she is a murderer. Rather, I am trying to look at this case as a WHOLE. I don't think anyone is saying that just because she did this ONE thing, that makes her a murderer. Someone earlier claimed that everyone is taking everything out of context, however sometimes my words or someone else's words might be taken out of context, too. It's everything together, in a combination. I do not conclude anything from looking at one specific datapoint, irrespective of all others, and irrespective of the circumstances of the case.

 

[Sonata]

Thank you Otto! Your post said it perfectly.

If 1 out of 1000 people do something, I would not put it in the "normal" category.

Should the other 999 people change their accepted "norm" and take on the 1 person's "norm"? That does not make sense.

I am not saying that because she did this odd behavior or that odd behavior, that she is a murderer. Rather, I am trying to look at this case as a WHOLE. I don't think anyone is saying that just because she did this ONE thing, that makes her a murderer. Someone earlier claimed that everyone is taking everything out of context, however sometimes my words or someone else's words might be taken out of context, too. It's everything together, in a combination. I do not conclude anything from looking at one specific datapoint, irrespective of all others, and irrespective of the circumstances of the case.

I get what you're saying about the whole, and I do agree.

However, I feel that it's dangerous territory to make assumptions based on that whole. Because unfortunate coincidences can and do happen all the time. So although it can be seen as back up for the whole picture that someone has some odd tendencies, it should be treated with care, because the two may not be related.

My standpoint is one of caution, and of not making assumptions.

 

[otto]

I'd personally say the missing money and phones is proof of an actual burglary.

I think I know what you're getting at though. That it wasn't a burglary gone wrong?

This is one of those aspects of the case that I just don't feel sold on either way.

I'm also still convinced that there was more people than RG and MK there that night. Still think Kokomani is suspect.

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.

 

[aa9511]

I don't think there is much within the realm of human behavior that isn't debatable at some level and right now I can't think of anything regarding this case that isn't debatable.We will just have to disagree on this.

I understand your point. However, we could continue that on to say that there is probably nothing IN LIFE that is not debatable. Anyone can claim anythng. Let's say I say something like "Mt. Everest is that tallest mountain n the world." And someone can say, well, no, when I look at pictures, I think Mt. Kilimijaro is the tallest. And I can say, well no, it's a fact and not debatable. The other can say, yes, but how do we know that the equipment they used to measure it was correct? That would lead to a tiresome searching of all the records about equipment was used to measure, was that equipment working correctly, did the people who use it use it correctly, etc. etc.. We could debate that for years. The truth is that it is an accepted fact that Mt. Everest is that tallest, and so that prevents the need for someone to constantly have to take months out of their life to go research every single accepted fact which someone else refuses to believe.

The same idea can be used for behavior. There is an accepted "norm" and accepted standard of how human beings GENERALLY behave and react in situations. Now, there will always be a few that don't react in that way, that doesn't mean that we should change our view of the accepted "norm." Because otherwise, as in above Mt. Everest example, for each situation, we would have to stop and go back and research, okay let's find a statistic of how the majority of people would behave in this situation.