Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#9

[MichaelSmith]

The tragedy of Meredith Kercher -- How the Kercher's have been failed by their lawyer and the Italian authorities


http://groundreport.com/the-tragedy-of-meredith-kercher-2/

Thanks for the link

 

[Katody]

The tragedy of Meredith Kercher -- How the Kercher's have been failed by their lawyer and the Italian authorities


http://groundreport.com/the-tragedy-of-meredith-kercher-2/

I always had the impression that Maresca was not disclosing all the facts to the Kerchers.

In John Kercher's book they're always waiting for some word from Perugian courtroom, always not really knowing what is going on, always in the dark.

It was shocking to me to learn that they've paid large sums for their own forensic experts. Why wouldn't Maresca advise them to leave such matters to the police and the prosecution!?

It seems he didn't really inform them how unsafe and lacking in real evidence the case always was.

 

[Amber29]

Here it is with the blue and green 5 cm measurements removed, and I moved the knife down ever so slightly.

Thanks for doing this, I think this is a much better overlay then the one I've seen.

 

[sherlockh]

Thanks for doing this, I think this is a much better overlay then the one I've seen.

Yes it is, and it shows why starch by the handle does not mean a thing. It was the top of the blade that needed to be cleaned. JMO.

 

[aa9511]

I think this is another example of Amanda's tendency to take things too literally ("but only their attorney, and not they themselves, contacted me"). I have always thought there was something a little Aspberger about her, but I guess that's just the impression I got.

And the thing is, she says it with a completely straight face. I mean, doesn't she consult with her lawyers before she posts this stuff? I don't get it.

How could she not understand this, or more importantly, how come no one has told her the gist of this??

I think she better get those lawyers of her in line because they are clearly milking money out of her and not even doing their jobs.

 

[otto]

And the thing is, she says it with a completely straight face. I mean, doesn't she consult with her lawyers before she posts this stuff? I don't get it.

How could she not understand this, or more importantly, how come no one has told her the gist of this??

I think she better get those lawyers of her in line because they are clearly milking money out of her and not even doing their jobs.

Perhaps Knox is too willful to listen to her lawyers.

 

[aa9511]

Yes, I can see your reasoning - although to me it fits Arias more than Knox, who appears psychologically different to me. I also think IF she is innocent, or even simply wanting to appear innocent, the thinking would be, "If I didn't do the crime, then why can I not show support?". Of course she doesn't take into account that rightly or wrongly, the Kerchers suspect her if they're not outright convinced she took part in the killing.

SMK, it could very well be a combination of all the things both you and I have said.

I think she's trying a little too hard to put up the "Meredith was my dear friend" act, or not-act, however one wants to look at it.

For example, in her posting on her blog, she said something like "until then I will honor and support my murdered friend Meredith."

Well, ok, I can understand that if she Meredith's long-time lover, who the parents suspect of murdering Meredith, but who is actually iinnocent, and who loved Meredith deeply and was her lover and so it is her right to "honor and support" her despite the family's wishes. Or maybe you can substitue and innocent husband or wife. Do you see what I mean? It doesn't make sense for Amanda, she only knew Meredith for a very short time!!

I think, if she just went with how she honestly feels, it would appear more authentic and people wouldn't doubt her authenticity as much. But it is, IMO, all an act, and that's why it feels inauthentic, because you know, those things are easy for other people to sense (when someone is being inauthentic).

She is trying too hard to pretend like she has this very deep connection with Meredith. And, IMO, it's an act - that's why she doesn't get how to react when the parents tell her this. Because it's an act for her. And so she is always going against her true reactions and feelings. And she is, IMO, always trying to think of "ok, so let me put this hat on, and how would someone wearing this hat react?" But then she gets it all wrong. Because it's not coming from her, it's coming from what she imagines someone wearing that hat would do.

Here is the portion from her blog: http://www.amandaknox.com/blog/

<modsnip>

 

[aa9511]

:santahat: as do we all. Won't be long now until the verdict (i was so jealous of your santa hat, and then when I went to quote you, the keyboard shortcut was right there - thanks ! :santahat:

hehehe....cute!

 

[aa9511]

Vogt's update synopsis for Tues Dec 17 is up:

In it, she speaks of the Judge "raising his eyebrows" over the email, and gives bullet-points of the defense summation (which to me seemed weaker than I had thought it would be):

A big focus of both defense attorneys was the prosecution's changing of motive from sex to money to toilet to spontaneous rage, etc.

http://thefreelancedesk.com/front_featured/amanda-knox-appeal-2/

I believe this could have possibly been Amanda's idea on how to take her defense, as we see in the letter that she also made motive a big factor in her letter.

 

[aa9511]

I think what's important is that Nencini today read Amanda's letter into the court record.
IIRC he refused to do so with the Kerchers' letter at the beginning of the trial.

He might have said it's irritating and unusual to not have the defendant speak for herself.
What I'm sure of: the judge will not rule about the case from his 'irritation'. He will be extra careful, even overly cautious to not let such things direct his decision.

The letter has been read in the courtroom by the judge. I think it's a very strong and sincere voice that will have unshakable impact on the jurors.
Amanda gives reasons for her absence in the beginning.



She then deals with the prosecution's case in a well reasoned, thoughtful manner. She makes great, concise points exposing prosecution's weakness.

http://www.amandaknox.com/2013/12/17/letter-to-the-court-of-appeals-of-florence

Did we read the same letter? Because in her letter, she completely misleads about Patrick!! She says, basically, that it's the police's fault that Patrick was arrested, when she herself was the one who accused him!!!

I do not think the court will overlook that. Here is Amanda writing a letter to the court, for which she is not even present, and she basically lies in it! Amazing.

What do you think that will make the court think about her credibility?

I honestly feel the letter actually hurt her. She should have just not said anything, IMO.

Also, if she was going to lie about it, she should have just competely left out the whole Patrick issue. I do not know why she even put it in her letter.

 

[aa9511]

I think all of this is weighty, and will be given due consideration by the jury - especially if they believe the evidence is weak.

I think if there is a presumption of innocence, this part will resonate with spirit and intuition:



Essentially, all stands or falls with the legitimacy of the evidence:

Without the evidence, any theory involving Knox and Sollecito is pure speculation.

If the evidence is not believed, then this opens the door to believing that maybe the police should have discarded the theory about Knox and Sollecito when Guede was caught; that perhaps this is why the motive has shifted, and it could be a miscarriage of justice as Amanda says.

If conversely the jurors believe the evidence is strong, then all of this is just so many efforts and attempts to persuade as to innocence. But the letter makes strong points which resonate, if there is an openness to the idea of a wrongful arrest.

As so many believe the evidence is just ludicrously lacking, then this must of necessity lead those persons to a belief that the jury will acquit.

All of her good points were lost when she lied. It's a shame she did that to herself. Hopefully, like you said, the letter won't make much of a difference, because I, like others, want the jury to only look at the evidence in a clear, unbiased manner.

I don't know how much the jury knows about Patrick. But if they know anything, then it will be clear to them that she lied in her letter. Because she was the one who accused Patrick, and she totally twists this point around like a piece of chewing gum.

 

[aa9511]

It is lacking in tact and finesse, for certain. If I were in Knox's shoes , upon hearing from Maresca, I would have posted on my blog: After hearing from the Kercher family attorney, and out of respect, I have removed references of Meredith Kercher from my blog. This would not be committing to any idea that she had no right to honor Meredith, just that she was respecting their wishes. She seems if not cruel, then a bit feisty. A bit feisty.

Yes, exactly, she should have written something like that.

How much is she paying these lawyers of her, for goodness sake!

 

[aa9511]

OK, have read her several comments. She does not trust Maresca, and feels compelled and entitled to honor her friend, Meredith. I think I can understand her reasoning.

See thumbnail for Meredith Kercher grave in Mitcham Cemetery. It has a marker, (a temporary one, it has been called) but no headstone. I don't know why.

bbm

I don't understand her reasoning, at all. She knew Meredith only for a short time, her parents are her parents, for crying out loud, who had a deep, deep bond with her as their child and their flesh and blood.

What she is essentially doing is, kind of comparing her relationship with Meredith to the Kerchers' relationship with Meredith and putting them on equal terms. Oh, for crying out loud!

 

[aa9511]

Yes. I scaled the knife so that the 5 cm ruler length was equal to the 5 cm ruler length on the sheet. Then I rotated the knife to what appeared to be the stain on the sheet. It looks to me like it's a close match.

Each of the lines is 5 cm, so the two blue and one green lines together are 15 cm. The knife blade is 17.5 cm in length.

It looks to me like an extremely close match.

 

[aa9511]

I'm not saying you painted it there. I have the original image.

I'm saying it is discernible that the handle of the real knife starts there.

It's also discernible in the hi-res photo that the knife had been shifted and rotated a few times in it's place. There are at least 2 imprints of the blade and the point of the knife, shifted and slightly rotated.

Anyway, even for the layman the kitchen knife is visibly much too long. Thanks for demonstrating it.

I'm not getting the point about the "too long" part. On the original picture, we can clearly see that there is no tracing of a handle, that is, of a handle of any knife. There is nothing there to indicate where the handle was. So how can you say for sure that the knife is too long?

Couldn't it have been that they simply didn't thrust the knife in all the way to the end of the blade? I would assume that there would be bones to block it from going that deep anyway (sorry for the gruesomeness).

 

[sherlockh]

I'm not getting the point about the "too long" part. On the original picture, we can clearly see that there is no tracing of a handle, that is, of a handle of any knife. There is nothing there to indicate where the handle was. So how can you say for sure that the knife is too long?

Couldn't it have been that they simply didn't thrust the knife in all the way to the end of the blade? I would assume that there would be bones to block it from going that deep anyway (sorry for the gruesomeness).

The depth of the major wound is about half of the length of the knife. One of the reasons why I think the murder wasn't really intended. High resolution pics of the knife show which part of the blade was scrubbed which also fits the idea that the knife wasn't fully pushed.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/images/d/d3/Knife_VI.JPG

 

[Amber29]

From the comments section of today's entry

http://www.amandaknox.com/2013/12/17/support-meredith-kerchers-family/#comments

Amanda says
<modsnip>

Yet we are to believe she herself is unfamiliar with her phone records and "believes" MCs version.

 

[otto]

From the comments section of today's entry

http://www.amandaknox.com/2013/12/17/support-meredith-kerchers-family/#comments

Amanda says
<modsnip>

Yet we are to believe she herself is unfamiliar with her phone records and "believes" MCs version.

Knox is delusional. Part of me believed that regardless of her guilt in the murder of Meredith, she would never do it again. Now, I'm not so sure. She's very determined to have her way and, if she can't have her way, she is going to hurt people - as we see her doing each day with the Kerchers.

I think that Knox is a very angry woman. I think her parents have seen this coming for a long time ... well before she went to Italy. People don't just wake up one day and decide that cruelty is the best option. She is also very threatened by the lawyer for Meredith Kercher. I'm stunned that people are encouraging Knox's behavior.

 

[MichaelSmith]

What Knox is doing to Meredith's family is beyond belief. What is wrong with her! Only someone with a mental disorder would do what she is doing to to the family of a murder victim. What happened in her life that resulted in her inability to care about how anyone feels? Why is she so determined to have what she wants, and if she can't have it, she lashes out?

What Maresca and the Kercher's have done is beyond belief imo. Maresca has acted at times as though he was really representing the killer Guede by having no questions for him at the last appeal and even objecting to the defence questioning him.

As for the Kercher's, I find it very odd how at the start of the trial they wanted all the evidence looked at but then Maresca went and opposed all defence requests including testing the semen stain which would have proved once and for all what Guede really did.

 

[MichaelSmith]

From the comments section of today's entry

http://www.amandaknox.com/2013/12/17/support-meredith-kerchers-family/#comments

Amanda says
<modsnip>

Yet we are to believe she herself is unfamiliar with her phone records and "believes" MCs version.

It's not a case of being unfamiliar with the phone records, it's a mistake and the transcript clearly shows Comodi referring to a call made at 12.00pm. Raffaele spelt Walter Biscotti as Valter Biscotti in his book. Does that mean he really thinks Guede's lawyer is called Valter? It's a mistake. No big deal.