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

[Sonata]

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.

Well, that's true. But I think most burglars would find the actual theft takes a back seat once a murder is thrown in.

This is another reason why I am not 100% sold on either theory.

 

[Sonata]

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.

Actually, the mountain thing IS more complicated. Mt Everest is the highest by altitude, but Mauna Kea is the tallest from base to summit. So you see, you can debate on silly little things, but you can also debate on very relevant things.

Also, human behaviour is influenced by all sorts of things. One example is culture. What is considered normal in one culture might be absurd in another.

Another example is mental illness and atypical neurological function. So for example, someone with Asperger syndrome would behave in a completely different way to a neurotypical. But for them it is perfectly normal and reasonable.

Perhaps it is because I work in a diagnostic facility for autism that I am hyper aware that perceived normal behaviour doesn't really hold up as a concept when you look into it.

 

[aa9511]

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:

I do not understand the importance of everyone admitting that they were also unpopular, or "strange," or "awkward" in high school. Does that mean we have to make some kind of pact with Amanda or something?

Believe you me, I have my own "quirks" and "weirdness." So how is it that I can look outside the box and recognize that Amanda's behavior after the murder is NOT in the "norm?" Am I betraying my pact to Amanda then, that because I also have "quirks" that I cannot question her??

I am standing by my assertion that I CAN look at Amanda's behavior surrounding the murder as ONE PIECE of the puzzle.

 

[otto]

Well, that's true. But I think most burglars would find the actual theft takes a back seat once a murder is thrown in.

This is another reason why I am not 100% sold on either theory.

If a burglar entered through Filomina's window, the first things to steal would be the laptop and jewelry. That didn't happen. The next thing to steal would be in Knox's bedroom - another laptop. Finally, the burglar would be at Meredith's bedroom. In that room, money and phones were taken after the murder.

How is it possible to say that because of the murder, burglary was no longer a priority. It seems rather obvious that burglary was never important until after Meredith had received 43 injuries and was slowly dying?

 

[aa9511]

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?

-Sonata, I understand what you're saying. But if it's just one or two random people who did it with RG, we could also say then why weren't their DNA found along with Rudy's? Same thing like people often say about AK and RS. And that wouldn't account for missing footsteps, cleaning up, covering up, staging. Not to mention inconsistencies in AK and RS's own stories.

-AK and RS wouldn't out Rudy b/c then of course Rudy could have told everything about their involvement.

-Rudy had incentive not to out AK and RS b/c the way it stands now, we still do not have a full picture of what exactly happened. If he did that, AK and RS could tell everything about HIS involvement. As someone told me one time in regards to this question, the more information there is, the more chance that Rudy could have gotten additional charges put on him

In this game they are playing right now, the LEAST possible amount of information comes out. Each person individually knows that this is the best option for their own case, that is why each of the 3 individually have come to the conclusion to keep their mouths shut.

 

[aa9511]

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.

Sonata, I agree with this.

 

[aa9511]

Well, that's true. But I think most burglars would find the actual theft takes a back seat once a murder is thrown in.

This is another reason why I am not 100% sold on either theory.

Well, we could also say that it doesn't take 43 stab wounds to kill a person when that person is, according to the evidence, not fighting back.
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO (no, I have never stabbed a person to death so no, I do not have direct experience and so yes, I realize I might be out-of-line trying to determine if 43 stab wounds is enough to kill a person, because no, I have never actually taken a knife and tested my theory. I have no direct proof to back up my point. On that note, I suppose detectives should never have any suspects in a murder, because how can they possibly know what is going on in the mind of an innocent or guilty person accused of murder, or how can they possibly know what was going on in the mind of the murderer as the crime was happening????????????? My experiences as a human being don't matter, because I am only me, and being me only I have access to my brain, and so I should not try to convey my thoughts about anything because how can other people possibly understand what I'm trying to say, because they don't have access to my brain or my thoughts. Only I can ever understand what I'm thinking, so why should I even try to put it into words or try to convey it to others?).

 

[otto]

Well, we could also say that it doesn't take 43 stab wounds to kill a person when that person is, according to the evidence, not fighting back.
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO (no, I have never stabbed a person to death so no, I do not have direct experience and so yes, I realize I might be out-of-line trying to determine if 43 stab wounds is enough to kill a person, because no, I have never actually taken a knife and tested my theory. I have no direct proof to back up my point. On that note, I suppose detectives should never have any suspects in a murder, because how can they possibly know what is going on in the mind of an innocent or guilty person accused of murder, or how can they possibly know what was going on in the mind of the murderer as the crime was happening????????????? My experiences as a human being don't matter, because I am only me, and being me only I have access to my brain, and so I should not try to convey my thoughts about anything because how can other people possibly understand what I'm trying to say, because they don't have access to my brain or my thoughts. Only I can ever understand what I'm thinking, so why should I even try to put it into words or try to convey it to others?).

Clarification ... there were 43 injuries, but not all of them were stab wounds. There were also bruises and other indications of a violent attack. The reason that prosecutors doubted that the murder was committed by one person is the absence of defensive wounds. It is instinctive to defends one's neck from a knife attack. Meredith was stabbed in the neck from the right and the left. Apparently, Meredith failed to defend herself from the violent knife thrusts into her neck, or when she received shallow knife cuts in her upper chest/neck area. The Supreme Court has agreed that the murder could not have been committed by one person.

 

[SMK]

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.

Me, too: My family has never been involved in anything approaching murder, but when it comes to inappropriate, jaw-droppingly callous remarks, uttered at funerals and weddings and birthday dinners, mine out-Amanda Amanda any day.

 

[Sonata]

Well, we could also say that it doesn't take 43 stab wounds to kill a person when that person is, according to the evidence, not fighting back.
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO (no, I have never stabbed a person to death so no, I do not have direct experience and so yes, I realize I might be out-of-line trying to determine if 43 stab wounds is enough to kill a person, because no, I have never actually taken a knife and tested my theory. I have no direct proof to back up my point. On that note, I suppose detectives should never have any suspects in a murder, because how can they possibly know what is going on in the mind of an innocent or guilty person accused of murder, or how can they possibly know what was going on in the mind of the murderer as the crime was happening????????????? My experiences as a human being don't matter, because I am only me, and being me only I have access to my brain, and so I should not try to convey my thoughts about anything because how can other people possibly understand what I'm trying to say, because they don't have access to my brain or my thoughts. Only I can ever understand what I'm thinking, so why should I even try to put it into words or try to convey it to others?).

Haha!

Nooo! That's the beauty of our predicament. We have such different views of the world but we can express ourselves, explore our views and as a result have a much richer experience of the world. It's amazing really. But it certainly is a challenge that I think is often taken for granted because people are generally very stuck in their own perspective.

That's the kind of discussion I appreciate here. Genuine exploration rather than 'who has the best and most provable idea'.

 

[OldSteve]

OldSteve, may I ask what made you change your opinion of Amanda's involvement?

Thanks for asking!

I'm not sure of RS/AK involvement; yet, on the-other-hand I'm even less sure of their innocence (so it's a conundrum for me)...

When POI's change their stories, lie, come up different versions of events - I see that indicative of guilt.
When interviewed, why not simply write on the paper handed to you, "I'm innocent and I'm an American citizen, I want to speak to my embassy!" - why instead come up with a story, why blame Patrick,,..

Plain and simple, why was not the truth told about events that took place?

 

[OldSteve]

Clarification ... there were 43 injuries, but not all of them were stab wounds. There were also bruises and other indications of a violent attack. The reason that prosecutors doubted that the murder was committed by one person is the absence of defensive wounds. It is instinctive to defends one's neck from a knife attack. Meredith was stabbed in the neck from the right and the left. Apparently, Meredith failed to defend herself from the violent knife thrusts into her neck, or when she received shallow knife cuts in her upper chest/neck area. The Supreme Court has agreed that the murder could not have been committed by one person.

Reading what you wrote, I went back to
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/ronhendry7.html

It mentions
"All told, the horrible injuries to Meredith Kercher were fully consistent with an assault by a strong man who swiftly overpowered her. "

Yet, I don't see that at all! - In reading that I see a Meredith fighting, struggling, kicking, doing all she could.... I do not see her swiftly being overpowered. Sounds more like she was trapped in her room...

Also mentioned - "Pathologists indicate that Meredith only had about 10 minutes to live after the mortal wound was inflicted." That's a long, long time - and how much time before that was she struggling?! Why couldn't she have run out her room if only one attacker???!!!

 

[otto]

Reading what you wrote, I went back to
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/ronhendry7.html

It mentions
"All told, the horrible injuries to Meredith Kercher were fully consistent with an assault by a strong man who swiftly overpowered her. "

Yet, I don't see that at all! - In reading that I see a Meredith fighting, struggling, kicking, doing all she could.... I do not see her swiftly being overpowered. Sounds more like she was trapped in her room...

Also mentioned - "Pathologists indicate that Meredith only had about 10 minutes to live after the mortal wound was inflicted." That's a long, long time - and how much time before that was she struggling?! Why couldn't she have run out her room if only one attacker???!!!

Unless there is a link to a medical report, I think we have to assume that the statement regarding a strong man swiftly overpowering Meredith is an opinion.

Page 368 of the Massei report describes the injuries to Meredith. It seems to be a methodical explanation of why the court (and the Supreme Court) concluded that there were multiple attackers.

http://www.westseattleherald.com/si...ttachments/MasseiReportEnglishTranslation.pdf

 

[otto]

Thanks for asking!

I'm not sure of RS/AK involvement; yet, on the-other-hand I'm even less sure of their innocence (so it's a conundrum for me)...

When POI's change their stories, lie, come up different versions of events - I see that indicative of guilt.
When interviewed, why not simply write on the paper handed to you, "I'm innocent and I'm an American citizen, I want to speak to my embassy!" - why instead come up with a story, why blame Patrick,,..

Plain and simple, why was not the truth told about events that took place?

This comment really hit home with me. I had never before questioned why she didn't say exactly what you suggest:

"I'm innocent and I'm an American citizen, I want to speak to my embassy!"

She seems brash and arrogant enough (we saw that in the courtroom) to say that, if it worked for her. Why didn't she say that? It seems like Mom got the embassy involved right away ... but of course, it was too late for that by the time Eda arrived in Perugia.

 

[Nova]

When claiming to have an area of expertise, such as a professor or lawyer, it helps to be verified. It's a simple process here at Websleuths.

That would clear up any question regarding the validity of claims such as "I have 15 years experience teaching post-secondary students and, according to research studies A, B and C, it is a fact that normal, healthy 18-22 year olds are pre-occupied with drugs and rape."


Verification would also offer insights into a claim of, for example, having taught post secondary students in the 1980s or 1990s, and stating that personal experience with those students is that they were pre-occupied with drugs and rape because of violent online games that we know were not developed until 2000 or 2005.

Well, then, let's try another angle. You claim AK's writing is proof of something.

Prove it.

While we're at it, you claim her sloppy housekeeping is somehow relevant.

Prove it.

(BTW, violent video games were in arcades as far back as the 1980s, IIRC. But I believe I referred to what students see in TV and movies. I KNOW those media existed even when I was a kid in the 1960s.)

 

[aa9511]

Haha!

Nooo! That's the beauty of our predicament. We have such different views of the world but we can express ourselves, explore our views and as a result have a much richer experience of the world. It's amazing really. But it certainly is a challenge that I think is often taken for granted because people are generally very stuck in their own perspective.

That's the kind of discussion I appreciate here. Genuine exploration rather than 'who has the best and most provable idea'.

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.

 

[Nova]

As I suffered through an awkward adolescence, I have a little experience with this "unpopularity" phenomenon. My sense of self was undefined and my body was late to bloom. Awkward! However, by the time I was Amanda's age, I too was a fox . And watch out world for the nerd undergoing metamorphosis!

However, while we enjoy our newfound popularity, we always are mindful of our past feelings of inadequacy. We like to bond with others that went through the same thing. It's not an indication "something is off". In fact, one could argue it makes for a well rounded adult.

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.

 

[Nova]

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.

Except it didn't "all come together" randomly; it was all cherry-picked by police, witnesses, tabloids, other media and posters who began with the idea that AK and RS were involved in the murder.

All because of one roommate who believes she saw glass on top of clothes somebody else moved and a cop or two who knew "instantly" that the burglary was staged.

 

[Nova]

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.

You are creating an arbitrary group based on your own conclusion. If you want to calculate odds, you'll have to count all the "quirky" people tangentially involved (including classmates, friends, cops, forensic specialists, jurors, employers, etc.) and then calculate what percentage AK and RS represent.

And of course you'll have to come up with a scientific definition for "quirky".

 

[Nova]

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.

We have excellent evidence for a burglary interrupted.