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

[otto]

I am going to listen very carefully. If I can find one small inaccuracy then I am going to fill 5 pages here calling them horrible liars. Ok, just kidding

It's not often that I laugh out loud when reading, but that is an excellent comment!

 

[otto]

Is there any way the link can be located? Maybe I'll try and Google it in context?

I just did a quick search and, it looks like it was discussed numerous times over several years. However, regarding the 12:47 phone call, there was a discussion about what was said in court versus what was in the transcript. I recall that it was around December 7 ... perhaps. Definitely early December.

 

[redheadedgal]

Regarding the "I was there" statement:

I know it was during a taped jailhouse visit with her parents - and was later explained away as Amanda meaning she was at Raffaele's apt.

Why isn't there a full transcript of this conversation so one could see the whole context and decide what she meant?

there is...

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/02/28/amanda-knoxs-there-doesnt-place-her-at-crime-scene/

 

[SMK]

The entire transcript is at this link below, all of it -

but of course she says this is not incriminating, as 2 courts have ruled:

Otto, your opinion on the taped visit transcript, and Dempsey's analysis?



http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/02/28/amanda-knoxs-there-doesnt-place-her-at-crime-scene/

 

[SMK]

there is...

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/02/28/amanda-knoxs-there-doesnt-place-her-at-crime-scene/

ha, thanks-- had just found it there via Google

 

[SMK]

I just did a quick search and, it looks like it was discussed numerous times over several years. However, regarding the 12:47 phone call, there was a discussion about what was said in court versus what was in the transcript. I recall that it was around December 7 ... perhaps. Definitely early December.

Yeah, the call one is on the murder wiki, but I just found this other transcript on Dempsey Seattle PI-- thanks for all

 

[otto]

Is there any way the link can be located? Maybe I'll try and Google it in context?

Here's where it was discussed on Dec 3

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=227712&highlight=phone&page=14

This is the link that is provided

pg 82 http://galatiappeal.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/ric-cass-p-g.pdf

This might help - translation

pg 69 http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/download/file.php?id=6852

That wasn't helpful, as it only addresses the phone call and not the entire conversation.

 

[SMK]

Here's where it was discussed on Dec 3

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=227712&highlight=phone&page=14

This is the link that is provided

http://galatiappeal.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/ric-cass-p-g.pdf

This might help - translation

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/download/file.php?id=6852

Thanks so much

 

[otto]

The entire transcript is at this link below, all of it -

but of course she says this is not incriminating, as 2 courts have ruled:

Otto, your opinion on the taped visit transcript, and Dempsey's analysis?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/02/28/amanda-knoxs-there-doesnt-place-her-at-crime-scene/

I read Dempsey's book. She is the person that started the rumor that Meredith's bedroom was the size of an "ironing board" and therefore, the murder could not have been committed by three people ... simply because it was impossible to fit four people in a 100 square foot space. I don't think much of her opinion.

Unfortunately, I also would look for a second source before believing what she writes.

ETA: I think it was the "ironing board" remark (which was then echoed by many for years) that resulted in me searching the floor plan for the cottage and building the model in Revit software.

 

[redheadedgal]

Continue to read what ever into his words to justify calling him a liar.

andrea vogt describes what happened in court today... according to her, part of what maresca said about knox's website was that it takes donations for the victim. but this is incorrect (a lie): her website directs potential donors to the official MK site which was set up by the K's.

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


so, first we had crini lying that the kitchen knife was "compatible" with the bloody outline on the bedding and now this. and people call AK and RS the liars...

for reference:

 

[otto]

andrea vogt describes what happened in court today... according to her, part of what maresca said about knox's website was that it takes donations for the victim. but this is incorrect (a lie): her website directs potential donors to the official MK site which was set up by the K's, correct?

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


so, first we had crini lying that the kitchen knife was "compatible" with the bloody outline on the bedding and now this. and people call AK and RS the liars...

for reference:

Do you happen to have a link to the blood stain on the sheet without the knife overlay? I'd like to have a look at the dimensions of the knife and sheet independently.

Here is a link to the knife. All I need is the sheet ... just to verify that the overlay is exactly as it should be.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Nencini_Appeal

(and we shouldn't forget that Sollecito said that we should expect to find Meredith's DNA on his knife due to her having dinner at his apartment)

One of the knives used during the murder is 34 cm in length. The blade is 17.5 cm.

 

[Monzoo]

I'm curious about something. In the Jason Young trial (NC) there was a civil ruling independent of a criminal ruling. The civil ruling came first. I'm wondering if Italian law permits that someone can be found responsible for the death and not be found guilty - like OJ Simpson. That is, can the fine of €25M be awarded even if they are deemed not guilty? Guede is guilty, so he can be fined, but what about Knox/Sollecito. Perhaps, in hearing both cases simultaneously, the upside is that the ruling can be one or the other, but not both - as we have seen in cases in the US. I don't know enough about Italian law, but having a simultaneous and consistent ruling seems far more just to me.

I am not well versed in Jason Young's case. I did a bit of reading. Do I have it correct that his wife's family filed a wrongful death suit before he was indicted, and that he never responded to the suit? Is it correct that this suit was then used in his trial? If this is the case, that sounds bad. I do not know if I have that correct, however.

As far as wrongful death suits, it seems to me that they are not that common. I can't think of any others besides the aforementioned OJ. I don't have information about how common they are in Italy. My best guess is that they only occur when there is a defendant with big pockets. Otherwise, it seems like it would be a waste of time and money for most victim's families.

I do have a few problems with having them run alongside a criminal trial.

For one: in most justice systems, there are different standards of proof, as well as different standards on the admittance of evidence between criminal and civil courts. This seems fair to me -- criminal convictions must be beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is no need for civil suits to meet the same standard.

As far as evidence, I think it is a problem to allow evidence that would not normally be allowed in a criminal trial, but would be admissible to a civil trial. It would be near impossible to segregate the evidence.

Specifically in this case, I think that the civil trials running concurrently create a bigger problem in that you have an effect of piling on. AK and RS have to defend against not only the prosecution, but Maresca, Pacelli, and the landlord's lawyer. ( not sure if the landlord had representation past the first trial.)

In my opinion, this creates a trial that is unfair to the defendants. If they are found guilty, confirmed by the Supreme Court, this may be one of the reasons the ECHR uses to vacate the conviction. MOO and all that.

 

[aa9511]

there is...

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/02/28/amanda-knoxs-there-doesnt-place-her-at-crime-scene/

Yes, the "I was there" line I believe also that she is talking about Raffaele's house. From the context, and also b/c I don't think she would admit the truth even to her parents. She did not trust that information with anyone, rightly so, I mean as we see the conversations in prison are recorded, so it was for her own benefit not to say anything to her parents. So no, I don't believe that was some grand confession or even mistake.

I have more issue with her response to the issue of the knife!! First she says she's "very worried" about this Raffaele knife. Then the parents say it's bullsh** and explain to her that someone of their side is also there for the testing, and Amanda is obviously not satisfied, even though if there was no issue with the knife in the innocence scenario, then why would she be worried about it?? But she sounds genuinely worried, hmmmm, wonder why?

 

[Amber29]

Yes, the "I was there" line I believe also that she is talking about Raffaele's house. From the context, and also b/c I don't think she would admit the truth even to her parents. She did not trust that information with anyone, rightly so, I mean as we see the conversations in prison are recorded, so it was for her own benefit not to say anything to her parents. So no, I don't believe that was some grand confession or even mistake.

I have more issue with her response to the issue of the knife!! First she says she's "very worried" about this Raffaele knife. Then the parents say it's bullsh** and explain to her that someone of their side is also there for the testing, and Amanda is obviously not satisfied, even though if there was no issue with the knife in the innocence scenario, then why would she be worried about it?? But she sounds genuinely worried, hmmmm, wonder why?

Yes and RS was also worried about the knife, enough to make up the pricking Meredith story.

 

[otto]

I am not well versed in Jason Young's case. I did a bit of reading. Do I have it correct that his wife's family filed a wrongful death suit before he was indicted, and that he never responded to the suit? Is it correct that this suit was then used in his trial? If this is the case, that sounds bad. I do not know if I have that correct, however.

As far as wrongful death suits, it seems to me that they are not that common. I can't think of any others besides the aforementioned OJ. I don't have information about how common they are in Italy. My best guess is that they only occur when there is a defendant with big pockets. Otherwise, it seems like it would be a waste of time and money for most victim's families.

I do have a few problems with having them run alongside a criminal trial.

For one: in most justice systems, there are different standards of proof, as well as different standards on the admittance of evidence between criminal and civil courts. This seems fair to me -- criminal convictions must be beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is no need for civil suits to meet the same standard.

As far as evidence, I think it is a problem to allow evidence that would not normally be allowed in a criminal trial, but would be admissible to a civil trial. It would be near impossible to segregate the evidence.

Specifically in this case, I think that the civil trials running concurrently create a bigger problem in that you have an effect of piling on. AK and RS have to defend against not only the prosecution, but Maresca, Pacelli, and the landlord's lawyer. ( not sure if the landlord had representation past the first trial.)

In my opinion, this creates a trial that is unfair to the defendants. If they are found guilty, confirmed by the Supreme Court, this may be one of the reasons the ECHR uses to vacate the conviction. MOO and all that.

That is what happened. Jason Young was convicted in a civil trial (although he chose to not respond) and that information was then introduced during his murder trial. It is, in fact, one of the points of appeal that is now being heard.

In Italy, I think it's common for the victim to have legal representation during a criminal proceeding if the victim is able to afford a lawyer. Often, that is a problem.

I have never been comfortable with the idea that someone could be found not guilty for a murder, but then found semi-guilty (like OJ) where they are responsible in a civil court. Basically, it has always seemed illogical to me. I see guilt as black and white, but the US seems to view guilt as shades of gray, where someone is not guilty of murder, but they are guilty for the death ... something like that ... I don't understand it.

I don't think that Knox has a leg to stand on regarding the human right violation. Her EHCM complaint relates to the conviction for the statements she made about Patrick Lumumba. The courts based their decision on the statements she made on November 6 and 7, neither of which were coerced, forced or demanded. There was no human rights violation when she wrote the letters. Regarding the consequences for violating the law, Italy can imprison people for three or four years for that violation if they choose ... again, not a human rights violation.

 

[Monzoo]

Yes, the "I was there" line I believe also that she is talking about Raffaele's house. From the context, and also b/c I don't think she would admit the truth even to her parents. She did not trust that information with anyone, rightly so, I mean as we see the conversations in prison are recorded, so it was for her own benefit not to say anything to her parents. So no, I don't believe that was some grand confession or even mistake.

I have more issue with her response to the issue of the knife!! First she says she's "very worried" about this Raffaele knife. Then the parents say it's bullsh** and explain to her that someone of their side is also there for the testing, and Amanda is obviously not satisfied, even though if there was no issue with the knife in the innocence scenario, then why would she be worried about it?? Bu tshe sounds genuinely worried, hmmmm, wonder why?

An innocent Amanda might very well be worried considering she had been in prison for over a week for a crime she didn't commit. That's the problem with parsing this sort of thing -- it can fit into either scenario depending on your perspective.

 

[aa9511]

Nancy Grace just said "line of coke"....just struck me as odd....

 

[otto]

Yes, the "I was there" line I believe also that she is talking about Raffaele's house. From the context, and also b/c I don't think she would admit the truth even to her parents. She did not trust that information with anyone, rightly so, I mean as we see the conversations in prison are recorded, so it was for her own benefit not to say anything to her parents. So no, I don't believe that was some grand confession or even mistake.

I have more issue with her response to the issue of the knife!! First she says she's "very worried" about this Raffaele knife. Then the parents say it's bullsh** and explain to her that someone of their side is also there for the testing, and Amanda is obviously not satisfied, even though if there was no issue with the knife in the innocence scenario, then why would she be worried about it?? But she sounds genuinely worried, hmmmm, wonder why?

I don't believe for a minute that Knox and her family expected that their discussions in prison would be recorded. Over the years, the family has described Perugia as a backward, medieval town where delusional prosecutors chase satanic tales.

About the knife, that's interesting.

 

[Amber29]

andrea vogt describes what happened in court today... according to her, part of what maresca said about knox's website was that it takes donations for the victim. but this is incorrect (a lie): her website directs potential donors to the official MK site which was set up by the K's.

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


so, first we had crini lying that the kitchen knife was "compatible" with the bloody outline on the bedding and now this. and people call AK and RS the liars...

for reference:

Yes she also says
"
(Direct, quickly translated quotes/highlights from court as civil parties (the Kercher family lawyers) made their closing arguments to the jury. Tomorrow will provide similar report for defense. If you disagree, take it up with the lawyers, but please don’t shoot the messenger. The translation was done simultaneously during court. Please signal if you note an error.) "

It has also been translated this way. Like I quoted and linked.

"She has a personal website where she invites people to collect donations in the memory of the victim, Meredith Kercher, which is an unbearable contradiction for the family,' Maresca said.

 

[Monzoo]

That is what happened. Jason Young was convicted in a civil trial (although he chose to not respond) and that information was then introduced during his murder trial. It is, in fact, one of the points of appeal that is now being heard.

In Italy, I think it's common for the victim to have legal representation during a criminal proceeding if the victim is able to afford a lawyer. Often, that is a problem.

I have never been comfortable with the idea that someone could be found not guilty for a murder, but then found semi-guilty (like OJ) where they are responsible in a civil court. Basically, it has always seemed illogical to me. I see guilt as black and white, but the US seems to view guilt as shades of gray, where someone is not guilty of murder, but they are guilty for the death ... something like that ... I don't understand it.

I don't think that Knox has a leg to stand on regarding the human right violation. Her EHCM complaint relates to the conviction for the statements she made about Patrick Lumumba. The courts based their decision on the statements she made on November 6 and 7, neither of which were coerced, forced or demanded. There was no human rights violation when she wrote the letters. Regarding the consequences for violating the law, Italy can imprison people for three or four years for that violation if they choose ... again, not a human rights violation.

Amanda's current appeal to the ECHR only deals with her conviction for Calunnia against Patrick Lumumba. I have not seen any arguments from her legal team yet, so I cannot comment on specifics.

Personally, I think that Calunnia should not be a criminal charge. I know that there are calls for judicial reform in Italy -- we will see if this is one of the proposed changes.