Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#3

[SMK]

Just like in US. Full sentences are not served.

If Amanda is found guilty, her sentence will be for the full 24 years.

Actually, in the US for some time full or close to full sentences have been served, and far, far longer ones than any which exist in Canada, Europe, or the Scandanavian countries. Guede, if he raped and murdered a girl, and will now go on to become a free man and a teacher, is more than extraordinarily lucky - in the US, he would have been given LWOP.

 

[otto]

Rudy wants to be a teacher. It seems as if he will not serve even sixteen years.

What country does not require teachers to have a criminal record check completed? What I mean is: who cares? No legitimate educational institution would hire someone with Guede's history.
It has been known for some time that Guede could be released as early as 2016.

 

[SMK]

I don't know what, if any, emphasis or faith ought to be placed regarding Statement Analysis. I do know I was quite impressed with forensic psychiatrist Dr. Andrew G Hodges "Thought Print Analysis", which places supreme importance on language and the subconscious admission of culpability through phraseology.

I was looking at this post - (not from Dr. Hodges, but from a different statement analysis website ) - of September 2013 on Amanda Knox, and was stuck by:

Statement Analysis has shown that while Amanda Knox did not kill Meredith, she did have guilty knowledge of the murder, with her words showing the language of sexual homicide.

She was, in the very least, present for the clean up, and may have been present for the murder. Her denial of killing Meredith, that is, the fatal blow, was reliable.

http://🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬.blogspot.com/2013/09/🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬-amanda-knox-speaks.html

It reminded me of an alternate theory from back in 2007-08, that RS and AK may have put Guede up to an assault/rape of MK, never believing he would go through with it or that it would result in killing - and then participated in the clean up when they realized their own guilt by inference. I wonder if this is possible or likely, and if so, what would the proper sentence be for being peripherally involved?

***In any case, in this recent interview, I think she comes off convincingly, despite what others have said or analysed:

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Amanda-Knox-still-trying-to-tell-her-story-229185331.html

 

[Sonata]

I don't know what, if any, emphasis or faith ought to be placed regarding Statement Analysis. I do know I was quite impressed with forensic psychiatrist Dr. Andrew G Hodges "Thought Print Analysis", which places supreme importance on language and the subconscious admission of culpability through phraseology.

I was looking at this post - (not from Dr. Hodges, but from a different statement analysis website ) - of September 2013 on Amanda Knox, and was stuck by:



http://🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬.blogspot.com/2013/09/🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬-amanda-knox-speaks.html

It reminded me of an alternate theory from back in 2007-08, that RS and AK may have put Guede up to an assault/rape of MK, never believing he would go through with it or that it would result in killing - and then participated in the clean up when they realized their own guilt by inference. I wonder if this is possible or likely, and if so, what would the proper sentence be for being peripherally involved?

***In any case, in this recent interview, I think she comes off convincingly, despite what others have said or analysed:

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Amanda-Knox-still-trying-to-tell-her-story-229185331.html

I have often thought all along those lines. That Amanda might have been present but not actively participating. To me, she seems innocent of murder but guilty of something unknown that she feels ashamed about. If I had to give a total intuitive response, nothing to do with evidence, I would think she is hiding something. But I don't even think it's necessarily directly to do with the murder.

 

[SMK]

I have often thought all along those lines. That Amanda might have been present but not actively participating. To me, she seems innocent of murder but guilty of something unknown that she feels ashamed about. If I had to give a total intuitive response, nothing to do with evidence, I would think she is hiding something. But I don't even think it's necessarily directly to do with the murder.

Your post reflects almost exactly what I have always felt. I am thankful that someone who mainly believes in her innocence can be so candid and so forthcoming.

Even back when I was more fully convinced of her innocence - or at least less willing to listen to the pro-guilt argument than I am now - I always felt, as you word it, that she seemed "innocent of murder but guilty of something unknown which she feels ashamed about"....This is why I found the idea that she may have put an idea in Guede's head highly provocative and suggestive. I can imagine her suggesting a fantasy to RG and then realizing he had taken it far more seriously than she had thought he would. Or that her own impulses were more malevolent than she had realized.

This could account for any clean up or staging, too - she felt implicated. The feeling which resonates is an echo of Raffaele's father speaking on Amanda in the first days after the murder: "She knows something. She knows something." That is, again in your wording, "the total intuitive response".

Perhaps it was Prosecutor Mignini's intuitive reponse as well? I have always felt that his "delusion" about Amanda contained some truth. This is what is so frustrating to me about this case: I cannot buy her total innocence, nor her total guilt - and these are the 2 sides argued.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Like I keep saying over and over, anyone can refute ANYTHING, especially on the internet. Doesn't mean we should believe any of it.

From Marcello's list, "30) A bloody shoeprint fitting Knox’s shoe size was left on the pillowcase. Shoeprints matching Guede’s shoes were also found on the pillowcase." Dr. Francesco Vinci refuted this in court, and his presentation is available in pdf format. A portion of his presentation reads in machine translation, "the line in question (indicated by the red arrows) is perfectly parallel to the similar one to the right (black arrows) and follows the the same radius of curvature. The equal curvature (right) of the two lines arranged at the periphery of traces clearly and incontrovertibly that CAN NOT be in the scope of a heel!" Dr. Vinci's point is that the putative shoe print that Rinaldi tried to claim was compatible with Amanda's shoe size was made when a bloody outline touched another part of the sheet and made a duplicate of itself. The markings are parallel, whereas the two opposite edges of a shoe print are not. Massei did not claim that the markings were Amanda's shoe print; thus, he accepted Dr. Vinci's argument. Whom do you believe, Marcello or Dr. Vinci?

 

[otto]

From Marcello's list, "30) A bloody shoeprint fitting Knox’s shoe size was left on the pillowcase. Shoeprints matching Guede’s shoes were also found on the pillowcase." Dr. Francesco Vinci refuted this in court, and his presentation is available in pdf format. A portion of his presentation reads in machine translation, "the line in question (indicated by the red arrows) is perfectly parallel to the similar one to the right (black arrows) and follows the the same radius of curvature. The equal curvature (right) of the two lines arranged at the periphery of traces clearly and incontrovertibly that CAN NOT be in the scope of a heel!" Dr. Vinci's point is that the putative shoe print that Rinaldi tried to claim was compatible with Amanda's shoe size was made when a bloody outline touched another part of the sheet and made a duplicate of itself. The markings are parallel, whereas the two opposite edges of a shoe print are not. Massei did not claim that the markings were Amanda's shoe print; thus, he accepted Dr. Vinci's argument. Whom do you believe, Marcello or Dr. Vinci?

Was this defense argument accepted by the court?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Was this defense argument accepted by the court?

Massei does not claim that Amanda's shoe print was on the pillowcase.

 

[otto]

Massei does not claim that Amanda's shoe print was on the pillowcase.

Doesn't the court conclude that it cannot be determined absolutely that the print does not belong to Knox, and also takes into consideration that there were positive luminol prints and biological traces of Knox's bare feet? Basically, the report seems to conclude that there are bloody barefoot prints of Knox at the crime scene, so it's not that important to connect a shoe print that corresponds to her shoe size to her.

p 344 Massei Report

 

[whoanellie]

Massei does not claim that Amanda's shoe print was on the pillowcase.

There are a lot of items in that list that are not in the Massei report.

 

[otto]

There are a lot of items in that list that are not in the Massei report.

What list?

 

[whoanellie]

What list?

Marcello's

 

[otto]

Marcello's

I still don't get it.
Could you please provide the list, or a link? Thx

 

[Sonata]

Your post reflects almost exactly what I have always felt. I am thankful that someone who mainly believes in her innocence can be so candid and so forthcoming.

Even back when I was more fully convinced of her innocence - or at least less willing to listen to the pro-guilt argument than I am now - I always felt, as you word it, that she seemed "innocent of murder but guilty of something unknown which she feels ashamed about"....This is why I found the idea that she may have put an idea in Guede's head highly provocative and suggestive. I can imagine her suggesting a fantasy to RG and then realizing he had taken it far more seriously than she had thought he would. Or that her own impulses were more malevolent than she had realized.

This could account for any clean up or staging, too - she felt implicated. The feeling which resonates is an echo of Raffaele's father speaking on Amanda in the first days after the murder: "She knows something. She knows something." That is, again in your wording, "the total intuitive response".

Perhaps it was Prosecutor Mignini's intuitive reponse as well? I have always felt that his "delusion" about Amanda contained some truth. This is what is so frustrating to me about this case: I cannot buy her total innocence, nor her total guilt - and these are the 2 sides argued.

Thanks SMK, I appreciate it.

My feeling is that she maybe was there, or walked in or something of that nature and fled in fear, not helping Meredith. Or that she suspected something was about to happen and left.

That's what it feels like intuitively to me, that she really wasn't involved in an attack in any direct way, but was witness to something and bottled out of helping.

 

[whoanellie]

I still don't get it.
Could you please provide the list, or a link? Thx

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...hat_scenario_is_the_nencini_court_considerin/

 

[TartLemon]

I've always thought Amanda was present when the crime was committed. The more she speaks or publishes, the more I believe it.

I'd never make a good juror because I FEEL evidence instead of critically analyze. However, Amanda has made critical errors in the retelling in subsequent interviews and publications.

Has Amanda apologized to Patrick?

 

[redheadedgal]

Has Amanda apologized to Patrick?

yes, during the appeal, in 2010:

She went on to apologize to the Congolese pub owner Patrick Lumumba, who spent two weeks in jail after Knox told police he had killed Kercher. Lumumba was later cleared of all connection to the crime.

"Patrick: I'm sorry," she said, turning in the direction of the courtroom where he was sitting with his lawyers. "I was naive and not at all courageous because I should have put up with the pressure that pushed me to hurt you. You didn't deserve what you went through and I hope you are able to find your peace."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Tearful-Amanda-Knox-opens-appeal-by-declaring-875520.php

 

[otto]

yes, during the appeal, in 2010:



http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Tearful-Amanda-Knox-opens-appeal-by-declaring-875520.php

Knox's statement in court: ""Patrick: I'm sorry," she said, turning in the direction of the courtroom where he was sitting with his lawyers. "I was naive and not at all courageous because I should have put up with the pressure that pushed me to hurt you. You didn't deserve what you went through and I hope you are able to find your peace."

Notice that she doesn't take responsibilities, but instead puts blame on "pressure that pushed" her to hurt Patrick. Also, she does not offer a personal apology to him, but instead makes a statement in court.

Patrick's response to what Knox said"... it seems like strategy. It as if she's playing a card game and she's losing, so she's playing every card she's got."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/arti...x-opens-appeal-by-declaring-875520.php#page-2

 

[SMK]

Knox's statement in court: ""Patrick: I'm sorry," she said, turning in the direction of the courtroom where he was sitting with his lawyers. "I was naive and not at all courageous because I should have put up with the pressure that pushed me to hurt you. You didn't deserve what you went through and I hope you are able to find your peace."

Notice that she doesn't take responsibilities, but instead puts blame on "pressure that pushed" her to hurt Patrick. Also, she does not offer a personal apology to him, but instead makes a statement in court.

Patrick's response to what Knox said"... it seems like strategy. It as if she's playing a card game and she's losing, so she's playing every card she's got."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/arti...x-opens-appeal-by-declaring-875520.php#page-2

I suppose if Knox truly felt pressured or harassed about the text from PL, this is a sincere enough apology, although one cannot blame PL for being less than accepting, given what he went through.

But all of this interests me less than the question, "Did she name PL as a person wholly innocent of the crime, or as one who had involvement?".

 

[otto]

I suppose if Knox truly felt pressured or harassed about the text from PL, this is a sincere enough apology, although one cannot blame PL for being less than accepting, given what he went through.

But all of this interests me less than the question, "Did she name PL as a person wholly innocent of the crime, or as one who had involvement?".

I came across this article (linked below) this morning. Some people in high places have difficulties believing that she was not involved:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/03/cnn-embarrasses-itself-with-amanda-knox-coverage/