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

[aa9511]

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

Paraphrasing, when one paraphrases that part of her letter, the meaning is the same as what I said.

<modsnip>

 

[Katody]

Or, it could have been that the bloody palmprint was from the other hand, which was holding on to some part of Meredith's body, and which got bloody from the blood coming out of her.

Why didn't the kitchen knife get bloody?

 

[Katody]

Paraphrasing, when one paraphrases that part of her letter, the meaning is the same as what I said.

<modsnip>

Just show me a quote. Paraphrases often get colored by personal biases and dislikes, as have been shown on this board many times.

 

[aa9511]

No she didn't "give them" Patrick's name. He got dragged into it because of a text exchange between himself and Amanda where he said he didn't need her to work that night and she responded with a casual cya later type message. Apparently the mistranslation of that text sounded like a definite plan to meet up later, putting all kinds of suspicions into the heads of the police.

None of which explains why they didn't just ask him for his alibi. I ask again - is there a requirement under Italian law to arrest someone before you check their alibi? If the answer is no, then it is the police's fault, and not Amanda's, that Patrick was arrested in the first place.

Did she accuse him or not?

 

[otto]

We're not discussing why Amanda went to jail, we're discussing why Patrick was arrested. And I still haven't had an answer to my question. Maybe people thought I was being snarky or whatever, but it was an honest question - is there a requirement under Italian law for police to arrest a suspect before they check their alibi?

If the answer is no, then its the police's fault Patrick was arrested. If the answer is yes, then admittedly Amanda does bear partial responsibility for encouraging the police's tunnel vision based on the misunderstanding of a text message.

<modsnip>

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=80193

 

[aa9511]

Oh.........a post to which I could say so much but probably shouldn't. I'll just say one word - irony.

:banghead:

Actually, it's not that complicated. It's a simple answer, what someone would tell their child to do. The fact that it's being thought into this much is exactly where the problem lies.

 

[otto]

Internet law is a speciality all of its own, and no Italian law would not govern what a defendant in an Italian case posts on her web site unless she, or her server, are located in Italy. I presume Amanda and her site server are located in the States, which would mean that only a court order from a US court could force her to remove or include anything. Italy could, if they wanted to use domestic law against her, block viewing of her blog to Italian internet users, and that's about it.

Knox's blog is hosted by someone and there are terms of service that govern what someone can put on a wordpress blog. It has nothing to do with Italian law.

 

[redheadedgal]

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

celebrity?: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...father-passionate-attack-cult-Foxy-Knoxy.html

publicity stunt: http://www.anorak.co.uk/320446/news...meredith-kercher-murder-brought-to-book.html/

on curt and edda and the ongoing trials: http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=jo...lang=en-CA&w=QnMqXxVWLOwHU5bDaxalzCPwqmRdsvfh

 

[Cappuccino]

Did she accuse him or not?

Yes she did.

^That's what a straight answer looks like - so I will ask for the fourth time, is there a requirement under Italian law to arrest someone before you check their alibi?

If the answer is no, then Amanda's accusation does not excuse the Perugia police from arresting Patrick, because we all know he had a solid alibi.

 

[aa9511]

Internet law is a speciality all of its own, and no Italian law would not govern what a defendant in an Italian case posts on her web site unless she, or her server, are located in Italy. I presume Amanda and her site server are located in the States, which would mean that only a court order from a US court could force her to remove or include anything. Italy could, if they wanted to use domestic law against her, block viewing of her blog to Italian internet users, and that's about it.

Ok, thanks. That makes sense.

 

[Katody]

<modsnip>

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=80193

Thanks for the quote. It's clear that what they made her sign didn't really reflect what had been said during the interrogation.
Do you happen to have the letter from November 7 saying what you declared before?

 

[otto]

Actually the profiler was talking about a specific person - Scott Peterson. The article you linked to, in the middle of a post about Amanda Knox and your personal opinion of her, had absolutely no relevance to Amanda or anything else to do with this case.

Just so everybody's clear.

Don't get hung up on the fact that when the profiler defined a personality type, he was able to apply it to one or another convicted murderer. A personality type remains the same regardless of what case is being discussed.

 

[aa9511]

We're not discussing why Amanda went to jail, we're discussing why Patrick was arrested. And I still haven't had an answer to my question. Maybe people thought I was being snarky or whatever, but it was an honest question - is there a requirement under Italian law for police to arrest a suspect before they check their alibi?

If the answer is no, then its the police's fault Patrick was arrested. If the answer is yes, then admittedly Amanda does bear partial responsibility for encouraging the police's tunnel vision based on the misunderstanding of a text message.

THe reason the police wanted Patrick in the first place is because Amanda said he murdered Meredith. Would you rather they have just stood around and done nothing after she said that?

I don't know about Italian law.

Did Amanda accuse him or not?

 

[SMK]

Who or what gave you the impression that Maresca had previously requested that Amanda remove anything from her website?

I didn't receive the impression: Amanda said so, openly, on her blog. That is where I got the information.

 

[Cappuccino]

Don't get hung up on the fact that when the profiler defined a personality type, he was able to apply it to one or another convicted murderer. A personality type remains the same regardless of what case is being discussed.

The case being discussed in that profiler's description of a personality type was Scott Peterson. Not Amanda Knox, and not "one or another convicted murderer", just Scott Peterson.

The link you posted was completely irrelevant to this case and lent no authority whatsoever to your own opinion of Amanda Knox. I'm glad you clarified that in a previous post, and I'm sure the decision to post that link was just an innocent mistake in the first place.

 

[otto]

celebrity?: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...father-passionate-attack-cult-Foxy-Knoxy.html

publicity stunt: http://www.anorak.co.uk/320446/news...meredith-kercher-murder-brought-to-book.html/

on curt and edda and the ongoing trials: http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=jo...lang=en-CA&w=QnMqXxVWLOwHU5bDaxalzCPwqmRdsvfh

The first link is to an article published by journalist Kercher. It's not a personal attack. The other links are also not personal attack, they are a review of the case from the perspective of respecting the courts.

 

[otto]

Did she accuse him or not?

She sure did. She introduced his name within an hour of arriving voluntarily at the police station. She then concocted an insane story about how Patrick was a murderer. She then wrote voluntary statements on November 6 and 7 confirming her accusations. On Nov. 10 she told her mother that she felt badly that Patrick was in prison because of her statements. No one reported the fact that she lied to the police. Police learned of her lies via wire tapped conversations between Knox and her mother on November 10.

The link to the transcript and excerpts are in post no. 931

 

[redheadedgal]

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?

there are many comments under her blog that support/encourage her decision to "stand her ground" w/ regard to her blog. why delete a few and not all? why delete comments made by your friend and wife of one of your biggest supporters (steve moore)?

we have been repeatedly asked to link to facts. this "fact" cannot be linked.

 

[aa9511]

I think you misunderstood.

If you want to match the kitchen knife to the imprint you need to explain why half of the blade left no blood imprint at all.

I know it's hard to explain because it's physically impossible.

There are more things about the kitchen knife absurd hypothesis that require suspension of disbelief: the depth of wound, the carrying of the knife for self-defense, returning it to the drawer, the complete lack of biological material or blood. All of it is hard to absorb for a reasonable person but the imprint idea simply defies belief.

I already explained my theory for why half of the blood left no imprint in my last response to you.

So I already explained that.

What about my question about how come the outline is spotty, and then all of a sudden there is a circle of blood from the handle in the short knife scenario. Wouldn't we expect more blood from the blade than the handle if the blade went all the way in to the point where it reached the handle?

 

[otto]

The case being discussed in that profiler's description of a personality type was Scott Peterson. Not Amanda Knox, and not "one or another convicted murderer", just Scott Peterson.

The link you posted was completely irrelevant to this case and lent no authority whatsoever to your own opinion of Amanda Knox. I'm glad you clarified that in a previous post, and I'm sure the decision to post that link was just an innocent mistake in the first place.

I quoted an FBI profiler and, per TOS, provided a link.

Is there still confusion?