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

[aa9511]

To make out a case of all 3, you really need some evidence of some pre-involvement, friendly texts, people seeing them together, even people hearing AK talk about RG. But there is just nothing. You cannot have a conspiracy without the people at least knowing each other

I think you also need more evidence of pre murder hostility. All we have is MK gossiped about AK not being clean. I think you would either need to prove 1) all three were tripping and this is a drug infused murder, of which it seems the prosecution backed away from alleging as such since there is no evidence of hard drugs or 2) evidence of AK being jealous of MK, being angry at her for chiding her, etc, There is no evidence at all of AK having negative feelings toward AK, all the evidence is that of MK feelings. And even that evidence is conflicting. Some even testified the girls were friends, went to chocolate festival, etc, I don't think anyone testified there was any long simmering fued.

The motives are conflicting, on the one hand there is the spur of the moment cleaning thing building up after weeks of tension (of which there is no evidence). Here you would have to believe that it was done in anger, like someone is fighting and grabs a weapon in anger. Usually such murders are rage attacks.

But here you also have third people getting involved and perpetuating violence. This is where the timing of the rape could be key. It need not be after, but if the rape was after the murder, that would support the state's stance. By switching to this rage motive, state now has to essentially show AK went first, killed her in a rage, then the others joined in second.

I never heard of a case where 3 people are involved in a rage attack. Sex story maybe but not rage

bbm

I do not get the same leap from "rage killing" or "rage motive." It doesn't have to be, Amanda got angry, picked up a knife and ran after Meredith and stabbed her to death. It could have happened in many other ways. For example, the 3 were hanging out, smoking, etc.., maybe playing some music loudly, Meredith comes in and is upset over the noise level. They then proceed to start teasing her. "You're so uptight, Meredith," etc. etc.. Maybe they even did other things just to annoy her after that point. Maybe went back and forth to her room to tease her and get her riled up. Maybe at one point, Meredith had had enough. Started getting very upset and yelling at Amanda...."you are so irresponsible....I would never want a friend like you....you can't even hold a job, Patrick wants to fire you, you live like a slob...." etc, etc.. They have an argument. Meredith goes back to her room. At that point, Amanda is pi**ed. She says, look who's talking, Meredith doesn't know how to have any fun, such a prude, etc. etc.. Just saying things about Meredith to release her anger. All 3 go back to her room, taunting her and saying you're so uptight, Meredith, we'll show you how to have fun. Come on, have fun Meredith, Amanda maybe making some sexually taunting moves at her. At that point proceed to sexually tease her, leading to the sexual assault. Meredith is yelling out, screaming. Someone holds her mouth shut. She continues to fight. Someone takes out a knife, either RS or Rudy, which is already on them, telling her shut up and threatening her with the knife. At one point, someone stabs her. From there, it progresses into what it eventually happened.

All pure speculation, of course.

Just showing how it didn't have to be Amanda running up to her and stabbing her out of anger.

 

[Sigh Sister]

bbm

I am no detective, obviously, but just thinking logically about this, I don't think that would be how it works. Just going strictly based on the evidence, I mean. Whenever there's a murder, they question the last people who saw them, and those who are close to them or had association with the murder scene, such as family members, roommates, co-workers, of course any witnesses if there were any, etc..

If they question someone and their story doesn't add up, or they find something peculiar about how they're acting, they investigate a little further. Usually the further investigation will rule them out or explain something about their initial reactions/answers, or sometimes it leads to something else.

I would imagine that's how it would work.

But again, I'm no expert, so take it with a grain of salt.

I'm an expert so you can take my word for it.

 

[SMK]

bbm

I do not get the same leap from "rage killing" or "rage motive." It doesn't have to be, Amanda got angry, picked up a knife and ran after Meredith and stabbed her to death. It could have happened in many other ways. For example, the 3 were hanging out, smoking, etc.., maybe playing some music loudly, Meredith comes in and is upset over the noise level. They then proceed to start teasing her. "You're so uptight, Meredith," etc. etc.. Maybe they even did other things just to annoy her after that point. Maybe went back and forth to her room to tease her and get her riled up. Maybe at one point, Meredith had had enough. Started getting very upset and yelling at Amanda...."you are so irresponsible....I would never want a friend like you....you can't even hold a job, Patrick wants to fire you, you live like a slob...." etc, etc.. They have an argument. Meredith goes back to her room. At that point, Amanda is pi**ed. She says, look who's talking, Meredith doesn't know how to have any fun, such a prude, etc. etc.. Just saying things about Meredith to release her anger. All 3 go back to her room, taunting her and saying you're so uptight, Meredith, we'll show you how to have fun. Come on, have fun Meredith, Amanda maybe making some sexually taunting moves at her. At that point proceed to sexually tease her, leading to the sexual assault. Meredith is yelling out, screaming. Someone holds her mouth shut. She continues to fight. Someone takes out a knife, either RS or Rudy, which is already on them, telling her shut up and threatening her with the knife. At one point, someone stabs her. From there, it progresses into what it eventually happened.

All pure speculation, of course.

Just showing how it didn't have to be Amanda running up to her and stabbing her out of anger.

I think all of that becomes more feasible if you factor drug use in. Normally, I wouldn't think such an escalation could proceed that far unhindered by a sense of boundaries or common sense.

 

[aa9511]

It is detective 101 that you are suppose to follow the evidence not follow the suspect. Sometimes, the evidence will lead to the suspect as in Jodi arias. Other times, police focus on a suspect and either try to ignore or misinterpret other evidence that does not favor their side. We saw this in the David Camm case where he was eventually acquitted after 3 trials, but police there co pellet ignores DNA evidence pointing to someone else and since they were so focuses in the husband they misinterpreted Innocent evidence in a nefarious light

I believe the same thing happens here. They zeroed in on them from day 1 and once it was clear RG was involved they has to make it fit.

How could that be when there are many hundreds if not thousands of cases where little to no evidence is ever found?? And they still find a suspect and after investigating that suspect, lead to a theory of how the crime occured?

If it was merely "follow the evidence," then what is the point of interviewing people such as: The last people who saw them, family members, close friends, co-workers, roommates, other people who lived with them, etc. etc.??

 

[aa9511]

I think all of that becomes more feasible if you factor drug use in. Normally, I wouldn't think such an escalation could proceed that far unhindered by a sense of boundaries or common sense.

SMK, but you know what? I don't think it has to be even hard drug use. See, there was a progression. IMO. Progression and "group mentality" involved. We have seen people in groups do stupid, stupid things even with no hard drugs/no alcohol involved.

I believe in this case, it was group mentality which eventually led to everything getting as far as it did. Along with some drug use, but not necessarily even hard drug use.

What happened here is you have 3 crazies all together, that's how things esclated to the point it did. No drug use even necessary when you have crazies involved.

Although I do believe at least some drugs were involved, but not necessarily have to be the hard ones.

 

[SMK]

This is where the timing of the rape could be key. It need not be after, but if the rape was after the murder, that would support the state's stance. By switching to this rage motive, state now has to essentially show AK went first, killed her in a rage, then the others joined in second.

If I attempt to fit Knox and Sollecito in, I would have to say that Knox and Kercher argued loudly but only verbally; Raffaele and Rudy went to defend Knox, and then it escalated to physical/sexual. (With Guede doing most, but why?)

To have it begin physically sounds too much like a jailhouse row, and less like a college students altercation.

There would have to be drugs/alcohol clouding judgment and impulse control , too---why would you want to commit an act of violence on the eve of going away for romantic weekend trip?

There would have to be a real provocation, too: Something like Meredith threatening to turn them into authorities for their drug use. More than an unflushed toilet.

 

[SMK]

SMK, but you know what? I don't think it has to be even hard drug use. See, there was a progression. IMO. Progression and "group mentality" involved. We have seen people in groups do stupid, stupid things even with no hard drugs/no alcohol involved.

I believe in this case, it was group mentality which eventually led to everything getting as far as it did. Along with some drug use, but not necessarily even hard drug use.

What happened here is you have 3 crazies all together, that's how things esclated to the point it did. No drug use even necessary when you have crazies involved.

Although I do believe at least some drugs were involved, but not necessarily have to be the hard ones.

Yes, that's true. There is such a thing as a "group dynamic" which allows people to engage in acts they would be incapable of doing alone. Point well taken.

 

[redheadedgal]

I follow the evidence and then come to a scenario.

and the police followed the evidence of the shoeprints and initally determined incorrectly they belonged to RS's nikes when in the end they were a different style and size. great detective work there lol

 

[aa9511]

If I attempt to fit Knox and Sollecito in, I would have to say that Knox and Kercher argued loudly but only verbally; Raffaele and Rudy went to defend Knox, and then it escalated to physical/sexual. (With Guede doing most, but why?)

To have it begin physically sounds too much like a jailhouse row, and less like a college students altercation.

There would have to be drugs/alcohol clouding judgment and impulse control , too---why would you want to commit an act of violence on the eve of going away for romantic weekend trip?

There would have to be a real provocation, too: Something like Meredith threatening to turn them into authorities for their drug use. More than an unflushed toilet.

I really believe the knife(s) were taking out to keep her shut during the sexual/physical assault. Maybe even just to tease her/taunt her. But it got completely out of control from there, as one would expect to happen in that kind of situation when knives/weapons become involved.

Just like using a group using a gun to threaten someone, to shut them up, or even just to tease them. But you know at that point, once the gun is drawn, you know this could all go horribly wrong.

 

[Katody]

That's questionable to say the least.

Oh sorry, my replies are in your quote, underneath your questions/statements is my reply. Didn't do it right.

You could try different colors

 

[Yellow]

bbm

I do not get the same leap from "rage killing" or "rage motive." It doesn't have to be, Amanda got angry, picked up a knife and ran after Meredith and stabbed her to death. It could have happened in many other ways. For example, the 3 were hanging out, smoking, etc.., maybe playing some music loudly, Meredith comes in and is upset over the noise level. They then proceed to start teasing her. "You're so uptight, Meredith," etc. etc.. Maybe they even did other things just to annoy her after that point. Maybe went back and forth to her room to tease her and get her riled up. Maybe at one point, Meredith had had enough. Started getting very upset and yelling at Amanda...."you are so irresponsible....I would never want a friend like you....you can't even hold a job, Patrick wants to fire you, you live like a slob...." etc, etc.. They have an argument. Meredith goes back to her room. At that point, Amanda is pi**ed. She says, look who's talking, Meredith doesn't know how to have any fun, such a prude, etc. etc.. Just saying things about Meredith to release her anger. All 3 go back to her room, taunting her and saying you're so uptight, Meredith, we'll show you how to have fun. Come on, have fun Meredith, Amanda maybe making some sexually taunting moves at her. At that point proceed to sexually tease her, leading to the sexual assault. Meredith is yelling out, screaming. Someone holds her mouth shut. She continues to fight. Someone takes out a knife, either RS or Rudy, which is already on them, telling her shut up and threatening her with the knife. At one point, someone stabs her. From there, it progresses into what it eventually happened.

All pure speculation, of course.

Just showing how it didn't have to be Amanda running up to her and stabbing her out of anger.

What you post in bold about this being pure speculation is the problem. Where is this mystery knife held by RG or RS? The knife the state uses - one that does not have blood - has AK DNA, implying AK stabbed.

Quite simply I don't see how you would ever get RG or RS involved in this as a 3 way murder.

 

[Yellow]

I really believe the knife(s) were taking out to keep her shut during the sexual/physical assault. Maybe even just to tease her/taunt her. But it got completely out of control from there, as one would expect to happen in that kind of situation when knives/weapons become involved.

Just like using a group using a gun to threaten someone, to shut them up, or even just to tease them. But you know at that point, once the gun is drawn, you know this could all go horribly wrong.

Yes I agree, I think RG used the knife to control her, this is what many rapists do.

 

[Yellow]

If I attempt to fit Knox and Sollecito in, I would have to say that Knox and Kercher argued loudly but only verbally; Raffaele and Rudy went to defend Knox, and then it escalated to physical/sexual. (With Guede doing most, but why?)

To have it begin physically sounds too much like a jailhouse row, and less like a college students altercation.

There would have to be drugs/alcohol clouding judgment and impulse control , too---why would you want to commit an act of violence on the eve of going away for romantic weekend trip?

There would have to be a real provocation, too: Something like Meredith threatening to turn them into authorities for their drug use. More than an unflushed toilet.

And no evidence of any of this, not even evidence of all 3 ever being in the same room

Most stabbings of this sort over stupid stuff involved very heated arguments, w someone grabbing the weapon in anger.

 

[Yellow]

:truce:

How could that be when there are many hundreds if not thousands of cases where little to no evidence is ever found?? And they still find a suspect and after investigating that suspect, lead to a theory of how the crime occured?

If it was merely "follow the evidence," then what is the point of interviewing people such as: The last people who saw them, family members, close friends, co-workers, roommates, other people who lived with them, etc. etc.??

There are cases where no evidence is found? I never heard of that.

I think you may be confused in what evidence means. Interviewing roommates, etc, is part of gathering the evidence, and after you do all that you then identify a suspect

As opposed to identifying a suspect and then looking for evidence to fit that suspect, this often results in the police overlooking exculpatory evidence.

 

[redheadedgal]

But each case has different and unique evidence.

We cannot just go lumping all cases together with similar "plot lines."

That is not how it works.

then why the constant comparison b/w JA and this case?? from this thread alone:

I agree. I am still trying to figure out if her lack of emotion, almost anger like you said, talking about the murder is b/c she really has no feeling about it, or b/c she is mad at the whole situation for essentially ruining the past few years of her life. Kind of like the Jodi Arias anger that still rages on in her, blaming Travis for "ruining" her life? Except in Jodi's case we know 100% that she really did do it. If Amanda's innocent, I can kind of see how the anger at the situation would kind of shroud any kind of normal emotion. But if she's guilty, then that just shows what a cold-hearted person she is.

I went back to an old thread that was linked to earlier in the thread, and found a link there to an article in, I believe, Daily Mail, where Patrick Lumumbo is taking about Amanda's personality and general weird-ness. I just shivered when he said something about how when Amanda met his wife, she gave her a oold stare and had her nose up, and Patrick knew she was just threatened by any woman. WHERE HAVE WE SEEN THAT BEFORE?? That is classic Jodi Arias.

I agree with everything you said. I think deep down inside she might be one of those Jodi Arias-types who we will never comprehend what is going on or what went on in her head. After what I've seen following some other cases, I don't doubt that she could have been so jealous and angry with Meredith that she concocted this sick plan.

I've seen her recent interviews....she states in every one that she considered Meredith her "friend." Now, as you say, why does she feel the need to emphasize that point? It's just like with Jodi Arias, in that first jailhouse interview she did, she said so many times that Travis was her friend and Travis was such a good guy, etc.. And she even admitted later that she said that b/c his family and friends were painting her one way and she needed to "get her side" out. Of course come to find out it's indeed all a pack of lies.

Well based on your theory of simple crimes, all savage murders are done by random people.

I'm sure if there were no pictures Jodi Arias left implicating her of the crime, or her palmprint on the wall, no one would have also believed that she could have done something so horrible. We would have believed that some random person came and brutally murdered Travis in a most horrific manner.

And yet in her case, we KNOW that she did it.

My point is that we shouldn't go with our gut instinct that a pretty little young thing like Amanda could not have done something so horrible. Just like some are saying we shouldn't go with a gut instinct that she did do it. It goes both ways. We should just look at the evidence and go from there.

I learned from Jodi Arias case NEVER to judge based on appearances or what we THINK a person is capable of, especially when said people are good actors/manipulators.

For example, in Jodi Arias case where Dr. Samuels read from that one article about some kind of memory lapse - transient memory something or other. And what he had done was probably gone on Google and found ONE ARTICLE out of thousands which supported what the defense wanted.

Otto, in one of her statements she also said that one of the things that she and RS supposedly talked about that night when they were supposedly at his place the whole night......was about high school and how he was unpopular in school and so was she. I think it's one of those Jodi Arias-type things, where females can just sense in other females that there is something wrong with this girl.

Prosecutors do it too. Juan Martinez EXPERTLY caught Jodi Arias in a lot of lies. If he had spoken SLLOOOWWLLLYY and given her time to think of the answers, she would have had time to make up some lie to suit her story. But he went at her, bam, bam, bam, she didn't have time to think and that when the truth of her all her lies came out.

I don't agree that it's wrong for the prosecutors to employ the tactic. Obviously, if you give a killer time to think up answers to suit the evidence, THEY WILL! Do we really think the killers care about lying to the jury??

Respectfully, I don't agree with your version of "reasonable doubt." I don't know if you watched the Arias trial or not, but I'm gonna use an example from there. We know Jodi Arias killed Travis Alexander. Now, I could pick out one small piece of the picture and say, well, that doesn't make sense, so that MUST be reasonable doubt! Ah-hah....I cracked the case....she is not guilty!! There is doubt! Like for example, Jodi kept her receipt for her transactions at the gas pumps in California, where she put the gas into her car and all the gas cans. Now, that seems like a stupid thing to do. Why would she do that? Well, they claim it's because she wanted to prove the route she took and her story of not going into Arizona (since there are no gas receipts from Arizona), but it actually made her look guilty in that she filled up the gas cans, and it clearly shows her close to the Arizona border and going in that direction.

So, can I look at that and say, oh wow, reasonable doubt!! Yes, NOT GUILTY. No, because actually that was because of her own stupidity. It was her own silly "planning" and mistake. It doesn't make sense, but the point is -- not every murder is perfectly planned. Just because the murderer does something that doesn't make sense to us, looking at it from after-the-fact, does that mean we should claim it is "reasonable doubt"??

Another example is she filled up her gas cans in Salt Lake City, too, after the murder and when she really didn't need to fill them up. Yet, she did and they provided proof that she lied about how many gas cans she had. So is that reasonable doubt, too? Becausae she made a silly, dumb mistake? I guess we can look at that and say, but why would she do that because it makes her look so guilty? Well, in reality, she's dumb and that's why she did it. And in reality, she's guilty.

So I'm not going to go down the road of tryiing to rationalize Amanda and RS's silly mistakes that they made, which make them look guilty.

The way this "reasonable doubt" is being framed, it makes it sound like Amanda and RS should have been professional hit-men who committed the perfect crime. In reality, it doesn't work that way. And perps make mistakes and they get nervous and they don't think clearly and they make dumb mistakes and on and on.

I've thought about the Arias case as well. But the difference is, in that Travis was trying to run away from Jodi. Jodi didn't have him pinned down and stabbing him. And even then, even with him running away, he did have defensive wounds on him. Very obvious ones. Remember his hands? Large cuts? Bruises on his legs, etc.. It was very obvious there was a struggle. He first defended himself, and then tried to get away.

About a week or so ago, there was discussion on here about the cut to Rudy's finger. Of course, they don't know 100% if that was from the murder, but I would bet 99.999999% that it is, especially since I have seen Jodi Arias had cut on same exact finger after her stabbing. I think it's when the knife slips because it's slippery, and the finger gets cut.

 

[aa9511]

What you post in bold about this being pure speculation is the problem. Where is this mystery knife held by RG or RS? The knife the state uses - one that does not have blood - has AK DNA, implying AK stabbed.

Quite simply I don't see how you would ever get RG or RS involved in this as a 3 way murder.

It is not speculation that a knife or knives was involved in the murder. Am I missing something?

Mystery knife held by RG? Well, someone had a knife. Even RG as lone wolf had a knife. Again, am I missing something?

I think maybe picturing the knife at Raffaelo's house as THE murder knife is where it's hindering the ability to see the picture as a whole. If I'm reading the posts right, it leads me to believe you are dismissing AK and RS as being involved because, in your opinion, the knife doesn't "match up."

But we know there was at least one knife used in the murder.

Does that mean we can find excuses for RG and take him out of the picture, too, because there wasn't a knife found connecting him to the murder?

Somebody there had a knife. If RG as a lone wolf, means he brought a knife with him. I don't think it's out of the realm, to put it mildly, to imagine someone had a knife with them. Or are we supposed to ignore that, too? Kind of hard to ignore that in this case.

I'm confused now.

 

[DerKritiker2011]

There would have to be a real provocation, too: Something like Meredith threatening to turn them into authorities for their drug use. More than an unflushed toilet.

Meredith has used drugs too and her boyfriend produced them.

 

[aa9511]

:truce:

There are cases where no evidence is found? I never heard of that.

I think you may be confused in what evidence means. Interviewing roommates, etc, is part of gathering the evidence, and after you do all that you then identify a suspect

As opposed to identifying a suspect and then looking for evidence to fit that suspect, this often results in the police overlooking exculpatory evidence.

Ok, evidence I mean evidence at the crime scene.

Yes, exactly, interviewing roomates is part of the gathering of evidence. They did that. As well as interview others. And then they identified a suspect(s).

It's not like they just picked them up off the streets in a big police truck and threw them in jail.

 

[aa9511]

then why the constant comparison b/w JA and this case?? from this thread alone:

Hahahaha, ok, ok. I get it. I'll try to stop.

At least I point out very specific similarities, such as cuts on finger from stabbing, or else some general points about how prosecutors work.

I don't lump "all stabbing murders" together just because they all include using a knife to stab someone.

But ok, point taken!

Are you a lawyer? You seem to have a knack for using people's words against them

 

[whoanellie]

then why the constant comparison b/w JA and this case?? from this thread alone:

Websleuths needs it own version of Godwin's Law with Jodi/Juan taking the place of Hitler/Nazis.:seeya: