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

[SMK]

I have written quite a few posts in the last thread regarding this elusive broken window. Her and Raffaele's changing stories regarding this is a BIG RED FLAG to me.

Her stories regarding when she saw the window makes no sense to me.

In her Version 1.0: "first" morning trip to the cottage, she completely leaves out the window. She didn't tell Filomena about it on the phone. She didn't say it in her recounts of the first trip (shower trip).

The why is very obvious to me: if she told everyone that she saw the broken window on her first trip to the cottage, of course then it makes no sense why she was "unsure" about the things she saw in the cottage, it also makes no sense why she would not call someone immediately, it also makes no sense why she would wait more than 2 hours to call police, it also makes no sense why she would saunter back to Raffaele's for lunch before they ever seemed to take the obvious burglarly seriously, and on and on, etc., etc..

I would be very interested to know if any of the supporters of her innocence would change their minds if they knew she lied about when she saw the broken window. But I think I already know the answer.

This is what I am trying to determine - DID she say at any point that she had seen the broken window when she was alone (before Raffaele joined her)? If so, that would throw things off the rails. If not, it is perplexing as to why she discovered it later, but I guess it's one more thing to file away as a question mark.

 

[SMK]

LOL, you do know that Battistelli's and Filomena's testimony is online and it constradicts your claim? :facepalm:

http://www.amandaknox.com/the-meredith-kercher-murder/

Why did the journalist the Guardian sent to court lie, then?

 

[aa9511]

I too find it odd and have ofton wondered this. If when he went to the bathroom did he close that door then or after the murder, if he's the lone wolf? And why would he do this?
I actually wondered as well how he knew his way around so well in the dark. Even leaving that night there were no lights on that I know of, even Meredith's turned off.

Good point. I also find it odd how the murder scene was contained only to Meredith's room, if Rudy was the lone wolf. I wrote a couple posts about this last thread, where I tried to go through different scenarios of Rudy and Meredith's placements and times.....and I found it very difficult to come to a scenario where the murder was specifically contained to only Meredith's room.

It's easy to come to some generalities, but much more difficult when one starts to think about the details of what that would entail.

Such as, some think Rudy was doing the burglary and Meredith walked in on him, but then wouldn't she have seen the broken window on the way to her room? Wouldn't that have caused her to stop there and/or turn back around, in which case the struggle would have began in Filomena's room or in the hallway or in the living room. And then why would Rudy take her to her bedroom? What did it matter for him if he raped her in the living room, Filomena's room, hallway, etc.?? It makes no sense.

As I said, it's easy for us to say, oh Rudy broke in and murdered her. But exactly how did the murder end up being contained to only Meredith's room?? Wouldn't there have been signs of a struggle elsewhere and/or the murder happenening elsewhere in the cottage?

 

[Katody]

Why did the journalist the Guardian sent to court lie, then?

I think it is not reasonable to imply lying each time there is a mistake. What business would this journalist have to lie about it? It's not like he wrote a book declaring Knox guilty and was hopelessly in denial like some other hacks.

Filomena wasn't the best witness when it comes to clarity and it's understandable some confusion ensued. Thankfully we can consult the courtroom documents, we're not restricted to usually inaccurate and sensational media reports.

 

[Katody]

I would be very interested to know if any of the supporters of her innocence would change their minds if they knew she lied about when she saw the broken window.

I'd change my mind without hesitation.
Just show me a proof and a reasonable coherent scenario of her guilt.

 

[aa9511]

OK; it is reasonable to assume the draft would close the door shut, yes.

But considering the size of the cottage, and the visibility of the doors from the LR area, it is odd that the broken window would not be discovered earlier, or told earlier in the first phonecalls (and to Filomena of course).

I know it seems a trifle, but it is one of those details that crosses the mind.

I am just surprised to find Crini focusing on just this fact. All is grist for the mill.

Also, would not the observation of the feces in Filomena's bathroom (which was during first morning trip), combined with the open front door and closed Filomena door, alert Amanda to the possibility that perhaps Filomena had come home sometime yesterday evening/night?

That she wouldn't have at least gone and checked Filomena's room to see if she had come home? First knock, no reply, open door to check inside.....oh, whoa, what's that, a broken window?!

 

[otto]

This is what I am trying to determine - DID she say at any point that she had seen the broken window when she was alone (before Raffaele joined her)? If so, that would throw things off the rails. If not, it is perplexing as to why she discovered it later, but I guess it's one more thing to file away as a question mark.

She made statements directly after the body was discovered claiming that she saw the broken window after taking her shower and before she had lunch at Sollecito's apartment. (Massei, page 38)

 

[aa9511]

RSs whole diary entry in interesting, there's this tidbit as well.

"Meanwhile I was loitering around the house and I advised Amanda to call her friends Filomena, Laura and Meredith. And therefore, after having done so, she told me that Laura was in Viterbo, that Filomena was with her boyfriend and that she would have arrived later and, lastly, that Meredith did not answer. We look around [facciamo un giro] the house and Amanda is terrified and jumps on me because she tells me that the faeces were no longer in the toilet since presumably before, when she was taking a shower, she had seen that there were faeces in the bathroom and nobody had flushed the toilet. I have a look and leaning over I see the reflection of the water and, not seeing any faeces, I believe what Amanda had told [diceva] me."
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Raffaele_Sollecito's_Prison_Diary_(Translated)

Considering all these phone calls were made already at his house. Seems RS has the whole timeline of the morning and how things went down confused.

Is Amanda or Raffaele telling the truth of how things went that morning?

Ain't got nothin' to remember when it's the truth.

Is it any wonder they got confused, having to remember so many fake details? It goes against everything which was stored in their brains. If one thinks about, that this whole story of theirs is exactly that - a story - made-up, think how many details they had to memorize/remember. Then keep them consistent. Then make sure they are consistent with each other.

It's no wonder the poor babies got so confused.

 

[Katody]

She made statements directly after the body was discovered claiming that she saw the broken window after taking her shower and before she had lunch at Sollecito's apartment. (Massei, page 38)

Do you have any theories why that claim was dropped by the prosecution, along with the bleeding hickey and the warm washing machine ?

 

[aa9511]

I'd change my mind without hesitation.
Just show me a proof and a reasonable coherent scenario of her guilt.

bbm

Exactly, that's what I thought. "Proof" in this case is subjective. Anything I show, it will be given some excuse to dismiss. "Reasonable coherent scenario" of her guilt - by that meaning the line of "why would Amanda do it," "what motivation did she have," "why would the 3 of them do it together," "they had nothing against Meredith"....so as we see none of that changes based on whether or not she lied about the broken window. That all stays the same.

So the answer is no, I see.

 

[Katody]

[/B]

bbm

Exactly, that's what I thought. "Proof" in this case is subjective. Anything I show, it will be given some excuse to dismiss. "Reasonable coherent scenario" of her guilt - by that meaning the line of "why would Amanda do it," "what motivation did she have," "why would the 3 of them do it together," "they had nothing against Meredith"....so as we see none of that changes based on whether or not she lied about the broken window. That all stays the same.

So the answer is no, I see.

I'm not asking you about the motive. I know it's very hard to come up with one. I'm just asking you for a scenario coherent with the evidence. Something that is not physically and temporally impossible.

 

[aa9511]

I'm not asking you about the motive. I know it's very hard to come up with one. I'm just asking you for a scenario coherent with the evidence. Something that is not physically and temporally impossible.

Oh, I see. So that I give you a "scenario coherent with the evidence," so that you can then figure out how to make her lie about the broken window fit into that "scenario"?

 

[otto]

Do you have any theories why that claim was dropped by the prosecution, along with the bleeding hickey and the warm washing machine ?

Dropped? I don't think so. It's in the Massei Report.

Are you thinking that if it wasn't mentioned during verbal arguments at the appeal, the evidence ceases to exist?

 

[Katody]

Oh, I see. So that I give you a "scenario coherent with the evidence," so that you can then figure out how to make her lie about the broken window fit into that "scenario"?

If someone manages to fit the evidence into a timeline involving three people I can start considering such scenario.
So far what I think is the evidence supports there was only Guede at the villa with Meredith that night. Trying to shoehorn additional people there requires physical and temporal miracles.
That's before we even consider motives. Does anyone here agrees with Crini's poo motive? Do you?

 

[Katody]

Dropped? I don't think so. It's in the Massei Report.

Are you thinking that if it wasn't mentioned during verbal arguments at the appeal, the evidence ceases to exist?

It exists just like Kokomani's and Aviello's "evidence" exists.

Let's say I'm sure the court going over it will take notice that none of the prosecutors deemed it worthy to mention or include in their argumentation


BTW Why do you think there's no mention of the washing machine in Massei?

 

[otto]

It exists just like Kokomani's and Aviello's "evidence" exists.

Let's say I'm sure the court going over it will take notice that none of the prosecutors deemed it worthy to mention or include in their argumentation

If it wasn't mentioned during trial, and considered significant, it would not be in the Massei Report.

 

[Harmony 2]

If a statement of fact is being made then a link should be provided. Otherwise, the statement will be totally discounted or taken as an opinion. If left unlinked then there is a risk it may be removed altogether.

The tone in here is hedging toward rudeness and I don't care for it.

 

[Katody]

If it wasn't mentioned during trial, and considered significant, it would not be in the Massei Report.

Why do you think Galati didn't complain that Hellmann didn't consider it?
Why do you think the SC doesn't recommend to consider it?

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/2012-02-14_-_Galati-Costagliola_Appeal__Italian_OCR_.pdf
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/2013-03-25_-_Supreme_Court_Knox-Sollecito__English_by_David_Anderson_.pdf

 

[otto]

If a statement of fact is being made then a link should be provided. Otherwise, the statement will be totally discounted or taken as an opinion. If left unlinked then there is a risk it may be removed altogether.

The tone in here is hedging toward rudeness and I don't care for it.

The statement has been linked. Here it is again. Knox reported that she saw that Meredith's door was locked and the window was broken after her shower and before she had lunch on November 2.



It was linked when it was first posted, but for anyone that missed it:
http://www.westseattleherald.com/si...ttachments/MasseiReportEnglishTranslation.pdf

page 38 Massei.

 

[sherlockh]

No she's not. Her story is consistent and unchanging.

I don't find arguments like 'British virgins are liars' or 'the witnesses are coached by the evil Mignini' very compelling. Neither is the amnesia because of pot smoking argument. Try that in a court of law. You have to come up with something better. Knox told different stories to different people at different times. There is no reason why multiple witnesses would be lying under oath.

The door is closed but Sollecito says it is open. Took a shower, no Sollecito says she didn't take a shower. Saw blood before the shower, no saw blood after the shower. Kept changing the time they had dinner (Massei report). Was home with Sollecito, but was seen at the basketball court by a witness. Slept late but phone and computer records showed they woke up early (if they even slept), another witness sees Knox early in the morning. Then there is Sollecito with a whole bunch of weird claims about knife pricking and admitting that Knox was out from 9pm till 1am. Then there is the false accusation. Even her own lawyers got frustrated with Knox's changing stories.

A lawyer for Knox, Luciano Ghirga, told reporters Friday that his client had given "three versions and ... it is difficult to evaluate which one is true."

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004005696_italy10m.html

Or a frustrated Sollecito senior who speaks of 4 to 5 different versions.
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...between_raffaele_and_everybody_else_be_ensur/