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

[Cappuccino]

[/B]

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.

You cannot be serious? Just in case you are, no there is no law governing whether or not someone links to your website on theirs. You post on the internet at your own peril, unless you have a specific court order against someone preventing any contact on their part, or unless you are one of the very few people covered by a contra mundum order preventing anyone from posting about you.

The Kercher's fall into neither category, so anyone can link to their website and be competely within the law, even if its a sick gore site encouraging trolls to gloat over Meredith's death.

 

[Myvice]

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.

Aren't we talking about the same site Katody linked?

 

[Katody]

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"

We don't know if the request was on behalf on anyone. There are objective reasons to doubt it.

John Kercher's book about Amanda is a personal attack and it is on Amazon.
You can look it up.
I'm patiently awaiting the quote supporting your unsupported statement I pointed out.

 

[Amber29]

You mean, faint brownish lines? I see those.

I think the way this knife has been scrubbed, that grooves sort of we're created. It's clear in the pictures.

 

[otto]

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 quoted a profiler that made a statement about a personality type. I'm not sure why you think that the profiler was discussing Knox, as I did not state that anywhere in my comment.

 

[aa9511]

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.

I think that's your interpretation that it was a part of the handle. It doesn't necessarily look like that to me. I am not sure if it's the handle or not. I believe one simply can't tell from that imprint.

As for the second part, because there was thick tissue or bones blocking the way, keeping the knife from going in past that point.

 

[Cappuccino]

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.

I don't know if some people on here know Amanda or not, but it is not up to us to be sensitive of everyone's personal feelings regarding Amanda personally.

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

If some people are too sensitive to hear discussion on Amanda, then maybe they can just move forward from those posts.

The post was worded in a very misleading way. It starts with a quote from a former FBI profiler, followed by a link, followed by Otto's own editorialising about how he thinks Amanda Knox fits into that category. For anybody who didn't click on the link, it would look as if a former FBI profiler had described Knox as a psychopathic personality, which would lend completely undeserved weight to Otto's armchair psychologising.

The fact that you personally weren't misled doesn't change the fact the post was badly worded, although I'm sure it was an innocent mistake on Otto's part. And I'm not concerned with sensitivity, but I am concerned with accuracy.

 

[otto]

I've edited my post. I'm waiting for you answer patiently.

Answer what?
The quote was copied directly from Knox's blog. If want to comment on content in Knox's blog, shouldn't that be done on her blog?

 

[Cappuccino]

I quoted a profiler that made a statement about a personality type. I'm not sure why you think that the profiler was discussing Knox, as I did not state that anywhere in my comment.

No you didn't. You didn't state otherwise either, but like I said, the misleading way your post was constructed was surely an innocent mistake on your part.

I'm glad you have now clarified that the link you posted, and FBI profiler you quoted, have absolutely nothing to do with Amanda Knox or anything else to do with this case.

 

[otto]

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

Is the suggestion that although only the blade is used to stab, the handle should be covered in blood such that when it is placed on a piece of cloth, the handle leaves a bloody imprint?

Why does the handle have to be covered with blood?

 

[Katody]

As for the second part, because there was thick tissue or bones blocking the way, keeping the knife from going in past that point.

That doesn't explain why there would be no blood on the blade and the handle, given that the knife was plunged repeatedly, creating a spray and an outpour of blood visible in the crime scene photos.

 

[Amber29]

The mixed traces are on the sink faucet, in the bidet, and on a box of cotton. The blood on the light switch and door tested positive for Meredith's blood only. So when someone says, "Amanda put her hand on the door here, and on the light switch here," they are speculating.

Yes the blood on the light switch came back as only Meredith. Just because theres noone elses dna there means nothing. There is NO evidence of RG in that bathroom, no DNA and he supposedly washed up in the sink, bidet, and shower.

 

[SMK]

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.

From what I could gather, Maresca contacted Amanda, asking her to remove all references/photos/links RE Meredith. Amanda responded by telling him she believed the Kerchers themselves should request this of her if they wished it. Maresca brought it up in court; she responded on her blog; finally, today, she removed the link and pics, and wrote an explanation of her actions to her readers.

 

[aa9511]

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.

Did Amanda not give them Patrick's name? Yet again, there are diversions being done to take the complete blame for this off of Amanda.

The reality is that in her letter to the court she lies and misleads and says that the police just looked at her statement and picked out Patrick's name from it. As if she just mentioned Patrick in some sort of nonchalant way, something like, my boss Patrick told me not to come to work. When in fact she was the one who accused Patrick of murdering Meredith!! So she says Patrick murdered her, and yet she passes it off in her letter like she had nothing to do with it, and the police just got his name out of nowhere.

 

[otto]

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

I'm sure that the Kerchers made a request via their lawyer for Knox to remove all references to their daughter from her blog shortly after they became aware of it. It was only when that refusal to respect the request of the victim's family was mentioned in court that we became aware of it. Prior to that, it was Knox's dirty little secret that she was demanding that the Kerchers speak directly with her before she would respect their wishes.

 

[Katody]

Answer what?
The quote was copied directly from Knox's blog. If want to comment on content in Knox's blog, shouldn't that be done on her blog?

My post is here:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10054600&postcount=860

 

[quesarita]

Is the suggestion that although only the blade is used to stab, the handle should be covered in blood such that when it is placed on a piece of cloth, the handle leaves a bloody imprint?

Why does the handle have to be covered with blood?

There was a bloody handprint at the scene (Meredith's blood, Rudy's print). That would lead me to expect the knife handle as well as the hand to have at least some blood.

 

[aa9511]

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

Mislead to make someone come to a conclusion that is not the truth. That is a lie in my book.

Would someone tell their child, no don't lie, but well you can mislead people to think something is the truth when it's actually not true?

 

[Katody]

Did Amanda not give them Patrick's name? Yet again, there are diversions being done to take the complete blame for this off of Amanda.

The reality is that in her letter to the court she lies and misleads and says that the police just looked at her statement and picked out Patrick's name from it.

The letter doesn't say this. I understand it's your opinion, not the facts.

 

[aa9511]

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.

But if that person saw a comment with their own eyes, and then later did not see that same comment where he had previously seen it, can I not take that person's word as an eye-witness?