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

[aa9511]

Link to the English copy of her letter:

http://www.amandaknox.com/wp-conten...3.12.15-Attn-Court-of-Appeals-of-Florence.pdf

I find it very amusing how she completely disassociates herself from the Patrick disaster.

"In this fragmentary and confused statement the police identified Patrick Lumumba as the murderer because we had exchanged text messages, the meaning of which police wrongfully interpreted........"

".....should never have been considered a legitimate investigative lead."
oh, so someone claiming to witness a person committing a murder....that's not an "investigative lead"? Sigh.

"The coerced and illegitimate statement was used by the police to arrest and detain a clearly innocent man with an iron-clad alibi......"LOL!
Oh yeah, Amanda, you had absolutely nothing to do with it. They just went an picked him up for no reason. And how would they know anything about his "iron-clad alibi" at the time when she told them he had murdered Meredith?

I find it hard to believe anything coming out of the mouth of someone who can so totally and wholly distort something which was clearly her own fault, and make it seem like someone's else fault.

I see a pattern in her behavior..............

Called taking no responsibility for your own actions,

also,

Lying to get yourself out of a situation,

Also,

Lying to make something favorable to you,

also,

Letting other people take the blame for your mistake,

also,

You are always right and someone else is always wrong.

Patterns, people, patterns........

 

[SMK]

Thanks Otto for your updates, thanks also SMK for your updates. Really appreciate it.

:loveyou:

most welcome :

Now all we do is wait for Jan 9 and 10 (Sollectio defense summation/Rebuttals)

and then it will be time for Jury Deliberations (Jan 10 or 15).

Feels like it's taken forever to get to this point.

 

[Amber29]

OMG, she just cannot take a hint, can she?? She's like one of those clingy friends who are just hanging on, hanging on. :facepalm:

I find that to be such an odd, odd response. Ok, so who does she think Maresca is? I mean, does she not know that he is connected to the Kercher family?? Would he just, by himself, decide one day, hey I'm gonna ask that Amanda to take things off her website? NO, OBVIOUSLY THE KERCHERS ASKED HIM TO SEND HER THE LETTER. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY DO NOT WANT TO EVER HAVE DIRECT CONTACT WITH YOU.

TAKE A HINT.

Wow seriously he is their lawyer. He does speak for them. They should not have to contact the person they hold partly responsible for their daughters death personally.

IMO it is so selfish to go against the Kerchers wish. That is truly sad.

I know some will say she has every right to have that on her page and you are right. Though knowing the Kerchers have asked it be removed and she doesn't, speaks about her character. All the while denying them because they speak through their attorney.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Maybe not. But the statement would have been stronger in person. I'm surprised she didn't go; it might even have looked heroic had she done so.

Until I read the CSC's motivation report, I might have thought that going back made sense, but not afterward: "The outcome of such an organic evaluation will be decisive, not only to demonstrate the presence of the two defendants at the crime scene, but also possibly to clarify the subjective role of the people who committed this murder with Guede, against a range of possible scenarios, going from an original plan to kill to a change in the plan which was initially aimed only at involving the young English girl in a sexual game against her will to an act with the sole intention of forcing her into a wild group erotic game which violently took another course, getting out of control."

 

[SMK]

Link to the English copy of her letter:

http://www.amandaknox.com/wp-conten...3.12.15-Attn-Court-of-Appeals-of-Florence.pdf

I find it very amusing how she completely disassociates herself from the Patrick disaster.

"In this fragmentary and confused statement the police identified Patrick Lumumba as the murderer because we had exchanged text messages, the meaning of which police wrongfully interpreted........"

".....should never have been considered a legitimate investigative lead."
oh, so someone claiming to witness a person committing a murder....that's not an "investigative lead"? Sigh.

"The coerced and illegitimate statement was used by the police to arrest and detain a clearly innocent man with an iron-clad alibi......"LOL!
Oh yeah, Amanda, you had absolutely nothing to do with it. They just went an picked him up for no reason. And how would they know anything about his "iron-clad alibi" at the time when she told them he had murdered Meredith?

I find it hard to believe anything coming out of the mouth of someone who can so totally and wholly distort something which was clearly her own fault, and make it seem like someone's else fault.

I see a pattern in her behavior..............

Called taking no responsibility for your own actions,

also,

Lying to get yourself out of a situation,

Also,

Lying to make something favorable to you,

also,

Letting other people take the blame for your mistake,

also,

You are always right and someone else is always wrong.

Patterns, people, patterns........

Thank you for linking to the English PDF. I had no idea the email was this lengthy.

 

[SMK]

Until I read the CSC's motivation report, I might have thought that going back made sense, but not afterward: "The outcome of such an organic evaluation will be decisive, not only to demonstrate the presence of the two defendants at the crime scene, but also possibly to clarify the subjective role of the people who committed this murder with Guede, against a range of possible scenarios, going from an original plan to kill to a change in the plan which was initially aimed only at involving the young English girl in a sexual game against her will to an act with the sole intention of forcing her into a wild group erotic game which violently took another course, getting out of control."

I see what you mean: It's a return to the 2007 narrative and it's reasoning. I suppose if I were Amanda I would have wanted to stand there offering a different gestalt, as it were, to the judges. But I guess it was too much for her and her family. Time will tell now how the professional and lay judges have taken all this information. They must at this point already be leaning one way or the other.

 

[aa9511]

Wow seriously he is their lawyer. He does speak for them. They should not have to contact the person they hold partly responsible for their daughters death personally.

IMO it is so selfish to go against the Kerchers wish. That is truly sad.

I know some will say she has every right to have that on her page and you are right. Though knowing the Kerchers have asked it be removed and she doesn't, speaks about her character. All the while denying them because they speak through their attorney.

And you know what, what is the big deal of her just removing it, anyway? I mean, if she doesn't have the link to their website on her site, what difference does it make to her? I just don't understand. Maybe she thinks it would look like they are guilty if she just teams up with Raffaele, like in that case, she would only have link to Raffaele's site and link to her donate to her own site. I think I get it now.....so by having Meredith's site linked on there, see then she's not just linked with Raffaele, but linked with Meredith too. I get her motivation now. She is trying to fit Meredith in there, so it doesn't look like her and Raffaele are a team on one side.

Saw right through that one, Amanda.

I think that she does these things, because she gets confused. See, she has to have the side she shows her supporters. She has to have a side she shows her defense attorneys. She has to have a side she shows her family. She has to have a side she shows the neutral public. She has to have a side she shows the Judges. She has to have a side she shows the media. She has to have a side she shows the prosecution and the Kerchers. That must be a lot to juggle. And so, it's like she sometimes forgets to take one hat off and put the other on.

 

[SMK]

Wow seriously he is their lawyer. He does speak for them. They should not have to contact the person they hold partly responsible for their daughters death personally.

IMO it is so selfish to go against the Kerchers wish. That is truly sad.

I know some will say she has every right to have that on her page and you are right. Though knowing the Kerchers have asked it be removed and she doesn't, speaks about her character. All the while denying them because they speak through their attorney.

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.

 

[Cappuccino]

I see what you mean: It's a return to the 2007 narrative and it's reasoning. I suppose if I were Amanda I would have wanted to stand there offering a different gestalt, as it were, to the judges. But I guess it was too much for her and her family. Time will tell now how the professional and lay judges have taken all this information. They must at this point already be leaning one way or another.

I think a conviction was a foregone conclusion before these proceedings even started and Amanda's presence would have made no difference to that, just as Raffaele's presence will have made no difference either.

That's how much faith I have in the Italian courts. I think we will be seeing both extradition proceedings in the US and an ECHR challenge to all Knox and Sollecito's convictions before we're very much older. My gut feeling anyway, for what its worth.

 

[SMK]

I think a conviction was a foregone conclusion before these proceedings even started and Amanda's presence would have made no difference to that, just as Raffaele's presence will have made no difference either.

That's how much faith I have in the Italian courts. I think we will be seeing both extradition proceedings in the US and an ECHR challenge to all Knox and Sollecito's convictions before we're very much older. My gut feeling anyway, for what its worth.

I really can't tell at this point how it will go...

Why do you feel this way? Actually, many thought the convictions would be upheld under Hellmann as well (I recall reading on a certain well-know guilt forum, the chances of convictions upheld were about 90%).

Also, what of what the media says (extradition would never take place)?

Something I am unable to determine: If the jury consists of 2 professional judges and 4-6 lay judges, aren't they independent of the judge, etc., in terms of what they choose to interpret and decide?

 

[SMK]

And you know what, what is the big deal of her just removing it, anyway? I mean, if she doesn't have the link to their website on her site, what difference does it make to her? I just don't understand. Maybe she thinks it would look like they are guilty if she just teams up with Raffaele, like in that case, she would only have link to Raffaele's site and link to her donate to her own site. I think I get it now.....so by having Meredith's site linked on there, see then she's not just linked with Raffaele, but linked with Meredith too. I get her motivation now. She is trying to fit Meredith in there, so it doesn't look like her and Raffaele are a team on one side.

Saw right through that one, Amanda.

I think that she does these things, because she gets confused. See, she has to have the side she shows her supporters. She has to have a side she shows her defense attorneys. She has to have a side she shows her family. She has to have a side she shows the neutral public. She has to have a side she shows the Judges. She has to have a side she shows the media. She has to have a side she shows the prosecution and the Kerchers. That must be a lot to juggle. And so, it's like she sometimes forgets to take one hat off and put the other on.

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.

 

[Harmony 2]

The media thread has been updated with today's developments..

Media Links/Timelines Only Please, No Discussion - Page 2 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[Cappuccino]

I really can't tell at this point how it will go...

Why do you feel this way? Actually, many thought the convictions would be upheld under Hellmann as well (I recall reading on a certain well-know guilt forum, the chances of convictions upheld were about 90%).

Also, what of what the media says (extradition would never take place)?

Something I am unable to determine: If the jury consists of 2 professional judges and 4-6 lay judges, aren't they independent of the judge, etc., in terms of what they choose to interpret and decide?

Its just my gut feeling, and I do of course reserve the right to be wrong. :santahat:

 

[SMK]

Its just my gut feeling, and I do of course reserve the right to be wrong. :santahat:

: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:

 

[Amber29]

Its just my gut feeling, and I do of course reserve the right to be wrong. :santahat:

I'm not so sure of a conviction, while I see them as guilty I think this court could fall on the same side as Hellmann.

We will see in January.

While my mind won't be changed, I will accept the verdict whichever way it goes. Considering the same "corrupt" system that found them guilty also overturned that verdict.

 

[SMK]

I'm not so sure of a conviction, while I see them as guilty I think this court could fall on the same side as Hellmann.

We will see in January.

While my mind won't be changed, I will accept the verdict whichever way it goes. Considering the same "corrupt" system that found them guilty also overturned that verdict.

I also think they could acquit as Hellmann did.

I think it all revolves around things such as :

• the bathmat print
• the bra clasp
• the luminol prints and traces,
• the simulation of the robbery
• clean-up
• the necessity of multiple attackers etc.

If the jury (professional and lay judges panel ) believes these are all valid and real, they will uphold the convictions (as clearly anyone would who was certain beyond reasonable doubt that this evidence was all legitimate and unquestionable.)

But if they doubt them, this will give reasonable doubt to acquit.

ETA:Wanted to add, that if you believe all the above-stated evidence, then it doesn't really matter what the argument was which triggered the escalation to violence; it's clear that it happened. Contra-wise, if you have strong cause to doubt all this evidence, then picturing some altercation or scenario really is just fantasy.

 

[SMK]

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/

 

[Cappuccino]

: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:

Whatever the verdict in January, I don't think this case will be over for a long time.

 

[SMK]

Whatever the verdict in January, I don't think this case will be over for a long time.

Likely not, and how does this work now? If acquitted, the prosecution can one more time appeal, and if convictions upheld, the defense can one more time appeal? I would hope one more time is it.

 

[Cappuccino]

Likely not, and how does this work now? If acquitted, the prosecution can one more time appeal, and if convictions upheld, the defense can one more time appeal? I would hope one more time is it.

If this court convicts it won't be one more appeal. More likely it will be a case exhausting whatever appeals exist in the Italian system, followed by the ECHR. Probably with extradition proceedings in at least one country, (two if Raffaele goes somewhere other than the US), running alongside the appeals.