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

[aa9511]

Yes, steel wool even, which can leave streaks of rust even on stainless.

Streaks of rust? When I use them on my stainless, it comes out shiny.

 

[SMK]

The statement is not anonymous

http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2009/dec/13/big-issue-kercher-knox-murder

My daughter was a Leeds student with Meredith in Perugia. They went out together on Halloween. When Amanda Knox was asked how she felt on 2 November, she said: "**** happens", which contrasts rather sharply with the contrived way she addressed the Italian court about "my friend Meredith".

This is the behaviour of the murderer or a psychopath. Sympathy for her is misplaced. She staked all on "reasonable doubt" and came up short. An innocent person would have had one coherent story to tell.

Marc Rivalland

London WC2

http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2009/dec/13/big-issue-kercher-knox-murder

 

[aa9511]

i agree. anyone who just looks at the knife and the stain separately should see they don't match.

"See they don't match" how? Because it's too long? As I said yesterday, there are no blood marks to show where the handle would have been for the "shorter" knife, either, so how can we say the knife was "too long"? There are no indications that it was too long or too short, because we don't know where the handle began.

 

[quesarita]

Streaks of rust? When I use them on my stainless, it comes out shiny.

Yes! I learned years ago to not clean my stainless steel sink with regular steel wool (I'm not talking about the stainless scrubby pads), because minute particles of the steel wool would get left in the grain of the sink and would rust. I don't know if that happened to this knife, but I've seen it happen to other stainless.

It's just that supposedly this knife was chosen from among others because it looked so clean. The other knives must have been a sight if streaks of blood were on this knife (that was considered extra clean).

 

[aa9511]

OK , thanks for clarification and illumination.

I guess I have never followed a case where the forensics have been so debated.

In terms of Professor Halkides, I simply meant that he is a qualified man of science , recognized as an expert to some extent; and understands all the terminology and logistics in a way that I simply do not.

Ok, thanks very much, for all this.

But it has to be the case as a whole, and evidence taken as a whole, which includes other evidence besides DNA. And the DNA evidence has to be taken into context in the big picture. Or else why aren't DNA experts the detectives in a case, also?

 

[aa9511]

odd that maresca/the K's didn't make a fuss about amanda's website til now...

(and yes, i have no doubts it's been looked at before... at least by maresca)

Yes, that is a point. Does anyone know how long she's had the link on her site?

 

[Katody]

"See they don't match" how? Because it's too long? As I said yesterday, there are no blood marks to show where the handle would have been for the "shorter" knife, either, so how can we say the knife was "too long"? There are no indications that it was too long or too short, because we don't know where the handle began.

The part of handle that was exposed to blood is visible in the imprint.

You need to explain why there was no blood on half of the blade if you want to go with the huge kitchen knife.

 

[aa9511]

What do you mean? Should the lawyer have introduced this concern in the media rather than a courtroom?

I suppose he could have just sent the letter privately to her at some other time too, couldn't he have?

 

[aa9511]

Amanda about the knife.

"I did not carry around Raffaele's kitchen knife.

This claim by the prosecution, crucial to their theory, is uncorroborated by any physical evidence or witness testimony. I didn't fear the streets of Perugia and didn't need to carry around with me a large, cumbersome weapon which would have ripped my cloth book bag to shreds. My book bag showed no signs of having carried a bloody weapon. The claim that he would have insisted I carry a large chef's knife is not just senseless, but a disturbing indication of how willing the prosecution is to defy objectivity and reason in order to sustain
a mistaken and disproven theory."

Thank you so much for the copies of her letter. However, like I said yesterday, she ruined all of her good points by outright lying about Patrick, and that was just one of the lies I caught. So it's kind of pointless to me to listen to anything else she has to say in the same letter, when she clearly lies in one large portion of it.

One usually doesn't lie in a letter if one wants people to take it seriously.

JMO.

 

[SweetT]

Amanda Knox wrote:

"The Kercher family’s civil attorney, Francesco Maresca, in his closing arguments yesterday, claimed I have been collecting unspecified funds in the name of Meredith and her family. He implied that I was deceiving the public and collecting those funds for myself.

Please visit the Meredith Kercher Murder page and scroll down to the Donation section to discover that I have simply added a link to the Kercher family’s own website where they solicit donations for their ongoing struggle through this heartbreaking legal process.

I have been solicited by Mr. Maresca to remove from my site anything I have done to honor her memory or show support to her family. My response was that no one but the Kercher family has any right to make such a request. As I await direct contact from the family of my murdered friend, I will continue to honor her and show support."

Now could you please provide a quote supporting the bolded part?

BTW I think character assassination being used by the prosecution and by Maresca is the clear indicator that they don't have a solid case. Looking into the nonexistent forensic evidence and Crini's discussion of the TOD and Curatolo I linked previously further proves it.

Here is my take on this and I am currently on the fence. But Amanda should know with all the yrs she has had to deal with legal issues etc that MR Maresca is the family attorney, and the family attorney is their spokesperson. It is unlikely that the family would EVER be advised to speak personally with Amanda, in fact quite the opposite. Almost every time there is a court battle with plaintiff/defendants the two are not to converse and have their respective attorneys respond and converse for them. This is normal procedure, so I find it offensive that Amanda would ask for them to speak personally to her...she knows the rules by now. It's harrassment! If the family wants her to stop etc and lets her know via the attorney, then she should abide by their wishes PERIOD!

 

[Cappuccino]

Thank you so much for the copies of her letter. However, like I said yesterday, she ruined all of her good points by outright lying about Patrick, and that was just one of the lies I caught. So it's kind of pointless to me to listen to anything else she has to say in the same letter, when she clearly lies in one large portion of it.

One usually doesn't lie in a letter if one wants people to take it seriously.

JMO.

I don't think she told any lies about Patrick in that e mail to the court, unless someone can show me evidence that the Italian police are obliged to arrest someone before they check that person's alibi.

 

[aa9511]

She was asked to remove it. She refused. That refusal is what was mentioned in court. It is relevant because it has revealed, for all to see, how selfishly cruel Knox has been towards "her friend's" family.

Ah, I see. Ok, so Maresca actually sent the letter (solicitation or whatever it's called) earlier, but Amanda didn't address the letter publicly until it was brought up in court?

Is that correct?

Do we know when Maresca actually sent her the letter?

That would make it even worse. I was under the impression also that yesterday was the first time he made Amanda aware of it, b/c for some reason I got the impression from Amanda's reply that she had just recently received the solicitation from him.

I'm confused now.

 

[Cappuccino]

Here is my take on this and I am currently on the fence. But Amanda should know with all the yrs she has had to deal with legal issues etc that MR Maresca is the family attorney, and the family attorney is their spokesperson. It is unlikely that the family would EVER be advised to speak personally with Amanda, in fact quite the opposite. Almost every time there is a court battle with plaintiff/defendants the two are not to converse and have their respective attorneys respond and converse for them. This is normal procedure, so I find it offensive that Amanda would ask for them to speak personally to her...she knows the rules by now. It's harrassment! If the family wants her to stop etc and lets her know via the attorney, then she should abide by their wishes PERIOD!

That sounds reasonable, until you realise that Maresca's statements have been apparently at odds with the wishes of the Kercher family on other occasions. For example, various members of the Kercher family communicated to the court that they wanted ALL evidence looked at in this trial. Maresca, for some reason, joined in with the prosecutions objection to the examination of various pieces of evidence that the defense wanted examined.

In that context I think its reasonable that Amanda would want to be sure that the Kercher's own wishes are being accurately described by their lying lawyer. And of course there was no demand for them to speak personally to her. There are many ways to communicate your wishes to someone directly in this day and age without speaking personally to them, including something as simple as making a post on the Internet.

 

[Katody]

Thank you so much for the copies of her letter. However, like I said yesterday, she ruined all of her good points by outright lying about Patrick, and that was just one of the lies I caught. So it's kind of pointless to me to listen to anything else she has to say in the same letter, when she clearly lies in one large portion of it.

One usually doesn't lie in a letter if one wants people to take it seriously.

JMO.

She didn't lie. It's just your opinion.

 

[Katody]

Here is my take on this and I am currently on the fence. But Amanda should know with all the yrs she has had to deal with legal issues etc that MR Maresca is the family attorney, and the family attorney is their spokesperson. It is unlikely that the family would EVER be advised to speak personally with Amanda, in fact quite the opposite. Almost every time there is a court battle with plaintiff/defendants the two are not to converse and have their respective attorneys respond and converse for them. This is normal procedure, so I find it offensive that Amanda would ask for them to speak personally to her...she knows the rules by now. It's harrassment! If the family wants her to stop etc and lets her know via the attorney, then she should abide by their wishes PERIOD!

She never harassed them or tried to contact them in any way.
In other post she said she has no proof they are aware at all of her website and know what's in it.
OTOH there is a lot of evidence that Maresca is manipulating the Kerchers and doesn't fully inform them about his actions.

 

[redheadedgal]

Otto, so have all of those comments been deleted. Dang, I should have checked it yesterday, but didn't. Do you know if there are any screen-shots, or anywhere I can still see them? TIA.

several of michelle moore's comments are still on the blog.

btw, i don't think it was wise for the poster to assert that comments have been removed b/c, since any screenshot cannot be posted here to back up the claim (as per the "rules and etiquette" thread, and harmony's repeated instructions against do so), it cannot therefore be proven that comments were, in fact, removed.

in terms of "court speak", and the rules of this site, it is merely hearsay that anything was removed.

 

[aa9511]

I don't see a connection between your quote and the refusal to be bullied by Maresca.

I'd say the evaluative comments of the like "everyone can continue to pretend that Knox is a good person" add nothing to the discussion.

Amanda is a good person. She agreed to remove the link despite the fact that the Kerchers who publicly attack her personally and through their lawyer have no right to demand anything from her.

bbm

We don't know that for sure, or at least I don't know that. There could be various rules/laws regarding the internet and personal websites that we don't know about. I don't know how all of that works. For example, the Kerchers did not want their website to be linked to from Amanda's website. There might be some rules that govern this. So technically, they could have indeed had a right to demand that Amanda removes the link to their website.

 

[redheadedgal]

The statement is not anonymous

http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2009/dec/13/big-issue-kercher-knox-murder

it was in the cite originally provided

 

[aa9511]

Are you trying to give the false impression that "former FBI profiler Robert Ressler" has described Amanda Knox as a psychopathic personality? Because you must know full well that the article you linked to was about Scott Peterson and made absolutely no mention of Amanda at all.

I think the post you made there was extremely misleading in its wording and I would like to think that was merely a mistake on your part. If it was, I'm sure you'll clarify.

I understood very well in the beginning just from reading the post that Otto was merely giving an example of a psychopathic personality. And then giving his own opinion of how it might relate to Amanda.

<modsnip>

We can discuss the case, of which Amanda is obviously a big part.

<modsnip>

 

[otto]

I don't see a connection between your quote and the refusal to be bullied by Maresca.

I'd say the evaluative comments of the like "everyone can continue to pretend that Knox is a good person" add nothing to the discussion.

Amanda is a good person. She agreed to remove the link despite the fact that the Kerchers who publicly attack her personally and through their lawyer have no right to demand anything from her.

BBM

"Bullied" Is that what it is called when a lawyer makes a request on behalf of a client?

This statement requires a link: "the fact that the Kerchers who publicly attack her personally"