Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#7

[Myvice]

I think what the problem is, is that with Jodi Arias and Casey Anthony , no matter what the feelings about them, there is acknowledgment that a crime was committed, and hence the prosecutor has the right to apply the rack, to get them to give witness. With Knox, there is a vast army of people who feel she ought never have been arrested; ergo the prosecutor ought not be holding her feet to the fire, in the first place.

And if she hadn't lied she may not have been arrested. I don't think Casey was arrested until her lies started coming out, was she?

Amanda was arrested after Raffeale told the police Amanda told him to lie for her. At least that's my understanding.

 

[otto]

I think what the problem is, is that with Jodi Arias and Casey Anthony , no matter what the feelings about them, there is acknowledgment that a crime was committed, and hence the prosecutor has the right to apply the rack, to get them to give witness. With Knox, there is a vast army of people who feel she ought never have been arrested; ergo the prosecutor ought not be holding her feet to the fire, in the first place.

There is no vast army of people that feels that Knox should not have been arrested. Most people don't care about Knox or Sollecito. Look at the non-event held by the senator to see how few people actually care. People that care about justice for Meredith have no choice but to be aware of Knox as she has made a point of putting herself all over the media since the murder occurred. She still does that today.

 

[otto]

When was the initial call supposed to have taken place?

Knox discovered the break in at 10:30. If she was so concerned about the break in that she needed to call someone, she would have made the call at that time. She didn't. She even had lunch before she made a call about the break in.

 

[otto]

Not true. Amanda discovered the front door open which was defective, the blood spots, and the mess Guede left in the toilet but not the broken window till she returned.

That's right. Knox discovered the break in at 10:30 when she arrived at the cottage. There were numerous signs of a break in, but they did not concern her.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Knox discovered the break in at 10:30. If she was so concerned about the break in that she needed to call someone, she would have made the call at that time. She didn't. She even had lunch before she made a call about the break in.

Not true. The break-in was discovered on the second trip back to the cottage after noon.

 

[Myvice]

If Amanda called to report the break in why did her Mom say that nothing had happened at the house yet?

 

[aa9511]

(RE Quintavalle; the witness who says he saw Amanda early in the morning of Nov 2 standing in front of his shop, waiting for it to open.)

I was reading in the Galati Appeal (PDF document; pp 37 - 41) that Galati believed Hellmann had dismissed the witness (whom he feels helps support 'the falsity of the alibi' taken together with other evidence) because "it took him a year to be sure he had seen [Knox]."

Galati believes this is a false argument: At the time Quintavalle was first questioned by police, they were asking for bleach receipts, and not about Ms. Knox:



He goes on to say that Quintavalle did correctly describe Amanda, and that his testimony ought not be dismissed as unimportant: It compiles part of the evidence.:seeya:
ETA: And imagine if not Quintavalle, but a webcam, had caught Knox there at opening time. What then?

Re: last sentence

Oh, but of course, our interpretations of the picture the camera recorded would be wrong. That would be a different blondish girl standing outside. Not Amanda. See, we would have it all wrong.

 

[Amber29]

Not true. Amanda discovered the front door open which was defective, the blood spots, and the mess Guede left in the toilet but not the broken window till she returned.

Right she thought all that was normal enough to hop in the shower.

 

[otto]

Not true. The break-in was discovered on the second trip back to the cottage after noon.

Nothing had changed between 10:30, when Knox discovered the break in, and 1 PM, when a call was made to the Carabinieri. She waited 2.5 hours before making the call, so the call to her mother was unrelated to the break in.

 

[Amber29]

If Amanda called to report the break in why did her Mom say that nothing had happened at the house yet?

Yes exactly because MC didn't pull those words out of thin air. She used them because its what Edda had said to amanda about the "call that doesn't exist"

 

[otto]

If Amanda called to report the break in why did her Mom say that nothing had happened at the house yet?

Exactly. Eight days after the phone call was made, Edda still wanted to ask Knox why she made the phone call at 12:47 when nothing had happened. Her next call to her mother, when something had happened, was at 1:23.

If Knox had mentioned a break in to her mother, she would not have needed to ask the question eight days later.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Nothing had changed between 10:30, when Knox discovered the break in, and 1 PM, when a call was made to the Carabinieri. She waited 2.5 hours before making the call, so the call to her mother was unrelated to the break in.

Yes, everything had changed. They had discovered Filomenas window had been broken after noon.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Right she thought all that was normal enough to hop in the shower.

All that? The front door was defective and finding Guede's crap in the toilet was after the shower.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Exactly. Eight days after the phone call was made, Edda still wanted to ask Knox why she made the phone call at 12:47 when nothing had happened. Her next call to her mother, when something had happened, was at 1:23.

If Knox had mentioned a break in to her mother, she would not have needed to ask the question eight days later.

All hell had broken loose in those 8 days and they were trying to reconstruct the sequence of events.

 

[Myvice]

I guess the media got it right when they went with the crap in the toilet. People are so fixated on it that they forget that the logical thing would be to flush it.

 

[Tugela]

Taking this from the previous thread:

Originally Posted by Tugela View Post
"She wouldn't need to touch MK's bra. She could touch the tap (or whatever) in the bathroom. If MK then touched that tap (or whatever), and afterwards put her bra on, then there could be DNA transferred that way"

I think there needs to be a link demonstrating that what you suggest is possible. This discussion about the transfer of DNA seems to have strayed so far from reality that it simply doesn't make sense anymore.

Could you please provide a link.
.

Let me explain it in terms you might more readily understand. Human DNA is no different from any other DNA. For example, an influenza virus contains DNA. If someone sneezes into their hand, and at some later points grabs something like a doorknob, virus can be transferred to the doorknob. suppose you then come along and use that doorknob. Now virus potentially is transferred to your hand. Suppose now that you use this hand to eat with, or wipe you nose (or whatever). Now that virus can gain entry to your body and infect it. This is how most flu infections happen and why you are supposed to wash your hands.

Transferring human DNA is exactly like that.

You do not need to know the person the original DNA came from, or even met them, all you need is a route of transmission, and in this case there is a very clear and obvious route.

 

[aa9511]

So they were speaking in 'code'?

Yes, the code of "Drop it, Mom."

 

[Amber29]

All hell had broken loose in those 8 days and they were trying to reconstruct the sequence of events.

Yes and it seems that as the sequence of events were reconstructing for Edda, she felt the need to ask amanda why she made that call.

This is exactly why some of us wonder what in that call made Edda ask that.

 

[aa9511]

I think what the problem is, is that with Jodi Arias and Casey Anthony , no matter what the feelings about them, there is acknowledgment that a crime was committed, and hence the prosecutor has the right to apply the rack, to get them to give witness. With Knox, there is a vast army of people who feel she ought never have been arrested; ergo the prosecutor ought not be holding her feet to the fire, in the first place.

But at the basis of it, that makes little sense. It is precisely the "unknowns" who have the most chance of getting off during the trial. And so it makes logical sense that the prosecutor should really up their game during those trials.

The same could be said for the defense.

 

[MichaelSmith]

I guess the media got it right when they went with the crap in the toilet. People are so fixated on it that they forget that the logical thing would be to flush it.

Logical according to some people but not to everyone. It wasn't her toilet or bathroom and this was a share accommodation house. Why not let Filomena or Laura deal with it since the 5 euro fine for not cleaning was their idea. It was their problem not hers.