Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #10

[Nova]

The character is a lonely woman with a compelte disconnect from normal social interaction.

Which has nothing to do with Amanda Knox that I can see.

 

[Allusonz]

Often the simplest scenario is the right one.

If Mignini had of presented this as a simple burglary that was interrupted I truly do not believe half the stuff being posted would even of been considered.

Mignini would of got his forensics back showing that RG's DNA was all over the victim and in her and the only one involved. With his history of break-ins this prosecutor would of simply stated RG broke in looking for money. MK interrupted that and the consequences were the one person that is proven to of been there raped, murdered her, and robbed her. He then fled the country.

Instead we have a prosecutor with a known past of presenting theories, in this case a satanic sexual orgy involving 4 people based on the vision of a psychic, one of whom was raped and murdered. In order to support this absurd theory, leaps and assumptions were presented to a jury which the forensics simply do not support which subsequently has turned this case into a circus.

When you have an absurd hypothesis, it requires absurd assumptions. I sit here and watch people trying to support these assumptions based on a prosecutors own personal demons.

I truly do not believe if this prosecutor had of presented the first theory this discussion would be taking place.

I ask each and every one of you to honestly sit back and think if Mignini had of presented the first scenario do you honestly think you would be having this discussion at present.

 

[otto]

How is it a Freudian slip, if, as Nova says, the police had already make AK aware that the crime scene was staged. So she now believes Rudy or whomever came in via the door, and muses as to whether he might have mentioned Meredith's boyfriend to get her to let him in. Where is the slip, where is the Freud????????????

What are you suggesting ... that Amanda modified her story with each new fact known to police ... and this somehow makes her innocent? I think not. A murderer that modifies her story to explain police evidence is a liar trying to cover her tracks.

There is only one truth, but for Amanda that seems to be a moving target.

 

[otto]

Well, there's a non sequitur if I ever saw one.

It follows quite logically, actually. You want Amanda to be given a walk because all she did was know about the murder, participate in the cover up, leave her roommate to bleed to death, conceal the information (just like she did when Patrick was in jail), fail to assist, fail to call police, fail to flee the scene and be confused about whether she was panicked or calm ... and all the rest of it.

That is not an innocent woman.

I would not want this woman anywhere near a murder if that's her reaction ... and I certainly think she is guilty of participation in the murder given her response. Furthermore, she was not convicted for knowing about the murder, she was convicted for participation.

 

[Nova]

So even though she was not being coerced, she adjusted her story to match someone else's story? That's weird.

And when was it again that she knew the break in was staged???

I don't know exactly when ILE first told her, but we know they (or possibly FR) did so. Otherwise, they had no way of accusing AK and pressuring her; she would have merely shrugged and said, "The burglar did it."

So AK had been told the break-in was staged by the time she signed her first statement. That she believed what the police told her about things she hadn't witnessed is consistent with her being innocent.

But those who see proof of guilt in everything AK says or does prefer to call the remark a "Freudian slip." This one ranks right up with AK's remark, "I was there" that the Court found so significant.

 

[otto]

BBM: really? Since when? Previously your point was that there is no perfect, absolute correlation, and I believe that to be true. But I've never heard anyone claim there is no correlation at all.

BTW, it is a tad odd to see you of all people arguing that one's past has no predictive value in re criminal behavior when you have devoted so many posts to the character assassination of AK. But whatever...

Whatever nothing. Lawyers bring up the "poor little me" argument to get criminals off death row, but not every murderer had a "poor little me" childhood.

Amanda is an adult ... and adults are responsible for their actions.

 

[SMK]

Often the simplest scenario is the right one.

If Mignini had of presented this as a simple burglary that was interrupted I truly do not believe half the stuff being posted would even of been considered.

Mignini would of got his forensics back showing that RG's DNA was all over the victim and in her and the only one involved. With his history of break-ins this prosecutor would of simply stated RG broke in looking for money. MK interrupted that and the consequences were the one person that is proven to of been there raped, murdered her, and robbed her. He then fled the country.

Instead we have a prosecutor with a known past of presenting theories, in this case a satanic sexual orgy involving 4 people based on the vision of a psychic, one of whom was raped and murdered. In order to support this absurd theory, leaps and assumptions were presented to a jury which the forensics simply do not support which subsequently has turned this case into a circus.

When you have an absurd hypothesis, it requires absurd assumptions. I sit here and watch people trying to support these assumptions based on a prosecutors own personal demons.

I truly do not believe if this prosecutor had of presented the first theory this discussion would be taking place.

I ask each and every one of you to honestly sit back and think if Mignini had of presented the first scenario do you honestly think you would be having this discussion at present.

:tyou:

 

[SMK]

It follows quite logically, actually. You want Amanda to be given a walk because all she did was know about the murder, participate in the cover up, leave her roommate to bleed to death, conceal the information (just like she did when Patrick was in jail), fail to assist, fail to call police, fail to flee the scene and be confused about whether she was panicked or calm ... and all the rest of it.

That is not an innocent woman.

I would not want this woman anywhere near a murder if that's her reaction ... and I certainly think she is guilty of participation in the murder given her response. Furthermore, she was not convicted for knowing about the murder, she was convicted for participation.

We never said this---we said she may have---MAY have possibly - come in on the murder scene HOURS after it occurred, and felt panicky if she had suggested the night before to Guede that he find rent money there when no one was home

 

[Nova]

What are you suggesting ... that Amanda modified her story with each new fact known to police ... and this somehow makes her innocent? I think not. A murderer that modifies her story to explain police evidence is a liar trying to cover her tracks.

There is only one truth, but for Amanda that seems to be a moving target.

As you know perfectly well, since you harp on it all the time, AK lied when she said she was in the apartment with Lumumba when MK was killed. She began recanting that story within a few hours in the "gift statement's" claim that her memory was more "unreal than real" to her.

Otherwise, AK has claimed she was with RS all night. Believing ILE when they claimed the break-in was staged is merely doing what you do: assuming members of ILE know how to do their jobs. It doesn't represent a new story of her whereabouts.

 

[Nova]

It follows quite logically, actually. You want Amanda to be given a walk because all she did was know about the murder, participate in the cover up, leave her roommate to bleed to death, conceal the information (just like she did when Patrick was in jail), fail to assist, fail to call police, fail to flee the scene and be confused about whether she was panicked or calm ... and all the rest of it.

That is not an innocent woman.

I would not want this woman anywhere near a murder if that's her reaction ... and I certainly think she is guilty of participation in the murder given her response. Furthermore, she was not convicted for knowing about the murder, she was convicted for participation.

The post of mine that started this wasn't even a reference to AK. It was a discussion of Italian law.

dgfred posted that admitting RG into the apartment would make one also guilty of any murder one's guest committed.

I responded that I don't know Italian law, but I can't believe it would be so unfair. I assume AK would have to know RG was going to commit murder or some other felony when she let him in or at some point before the crime in order to be guilty of murder. That's how it works in the U.S. and I doubt that Italian law is less reasonable.

If you know otherwise, let's hear it. But your actual responses have nothing to do with what I posted.

As we have discussed, there are other laws that might apply to the aftermath, including accomplice-after-the-fact, failure to assist, obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, etc. I agree that if AK effected the break-in, then she was probably involved in the murder.

All I said was that I doubt the act of opening a door in and of itself can make one guilty of murder. Even in Italy. There has to be some other overt act or knowledge of impending crime.

AND IN FACT AK was not accused of merely opening the door.

 

[SMK]

Often the simplest scenario is the right one.

If Mignini had of presented this as a simple burglary that was interrupted I truly do not believe half the stuff being posted would even of been considered.

Mignini would of got his forensics back showing that RG's DNA was all over the victim and in her and the only one involved. With his history of break-ins this prosecutor would of simply stated RG broke in looking for money. MK interrupted that and the consequences were the one person that is proven to of been there raped, murdered her, and robbed her. He then fled the country.

Instead we have a prosecutor with a known past of presenting theories, in this case a satanic sexual orgy involving 4 people based on the vision of a psychic, one of whom was raped and murdered. In order to support this absurd theory, leaps and assumptions were presented to a jury which the forensics simply do not support which subsequently has turned this case into a circus.

When you have an absurd hypothesis, it requires absurd assumptions. I sit here and watch people trying to support these assumptions based on a prosecutors own personal demons.

I truly do not believe if this prosecutor had of presented the first theory this discussion would be taking place.

I ask each and every one of you to honestly sit back and think if Mignini had of presented the first scenario do you honestly think you would be having this discussion at present.

And recall, at the time Mignini had his intuition, he did not know about Guede. Once Patrick was counted out, and Guede counted in, that was the time to reassess. But Mignini apparently could not rid himself of his fixed idea, plus with 20 indictments thrown out in the Monster of Florence fiasco, he thought he could save face by really and truly this time proving his sex theory.

 

[Nova]

Whatever nothing. Lawyers bring up the "poor little me" argument to get criminals off death row, but not every murderer had a "poor little me" childhood.

Amanda is an adult ... and adults are responsible for their actions.

This is an argument you are having with yourself, otto. Nobody here has said otherwise.

 

[SMK]

Whatever nothing. Lawyers bring up the "poor little me" argument to get criminals off death row, but not every murderer had a "poor little me" childhood.

Amanda is an adult ... and adults are responsible for their actions.

Unless she did not commit the action, and was falsely indicted and convicted. It happens. We none of us are responsible for that which we did not do. It has been said that Knox has never expressed remorse. Well, if she didn't do it, how could she?

 

[otto]

As you know perfectly well, since you harp on it all the time, AK lied when she said she was in the apartment with Lumumba when MK was killed. She began recanting that story within a few hours in the "gift statement's" claim that her memory was more "unreal than real" to her.

Otherwise, AK has claimed she was with RS all night. Believing ILE when they claimed the break-in was staged is merely doing what you do: assuming members of ILE know how to do their jobs. It doesn't represent a new story of her whereabouts.

Any old excuse will do! When Amanda's father wants to understand how Rudy got into the house ... "in the front door, dad." Sounds truthful enough to me. Too bad in kind of conflicts with the facts known to Knox; ie: that broken window. She should have said that the window was broken, so he probably entered that way. That is the only answer that an innocent person should offer.

 

[otto]

This is an argument you are having with yourself, otto. Nobody here has said otherwise.

Who is arguing? Knox is a convicted murderer, and there's no reason to suggest that this is impossible due to her childhood, or the fact that this is her first conviction.

 

[otto]

Unless she did not commit the action, and was falsely indicted and convicted. It happens. We none of us are responsible for that which we did not do. It has been said that Knox has never expressed remorse. Well, if she didn't do it, how could she?

It has actually been pointed out that neither Amanda, nor anyone in her entire family, has expressed condolences (not remorse). That was the important point. Meredith was murdered and although Amanda has pretended that Meredith was her "good friend", she has said that she wants to "get on with her life". Meredith's father pointed out in one of his articles that the family had failed to convey condolences at any time. Knox/Mellas response was that they'll get around to it after their daughter is out of jail. That is sooooooooooo brash.

 

[SMK]

Any old excuse will do! When Amanda's father wants to understand how Rudy got into the house ... "in the front door, dad." Sounds truthful enough to me. Too bad in kind of conflicts with the facts known to Knox; ie: that broken window. She should have said that the window was broken, so he probably entered that way. That is the only answer that an innocent person should offer.

But police told her it was staged, and if she knew she did not stage it.......so no one came via the window, if ILE told her it was staged.

 

[SMK]

It has actually been pointed out that neither Amanda, nor anyone in her entire family, has expressed condolences (not remorse). That was the important point. Meredith was murdered and although Amanda has pretended that Meredith was her "good friend", she has said that she wants to "get on with her life". Meredith's father pointed out in one of his articles that the family had failed to convey condolences at any time. Knox/Mellas response was that they'll get around to it after their daughter is out of jail. That is sooooooooooo brash.

Could it be they felt a bit awkward , as Amanda was accused of murdering her? Perhaps they felt it would sound like an admission of culpability??? After all, if AK and her family are such good fakes and liars, this would have been the time to lay it on thick, "How very, very sorry we are, how grieved and pained, we have lost her, too, etc."

 

[otto]

But police told her it was staged, and if she knew she did not stage it.......so no one came via the window, if ILE told her it was staged.

Did they? She was talking to her father, not police.

Why would she adjust the truth as she knew it when talking with her father?

 

[Nova]

Any old excuse will do! When Amanda's father wants to understand how Rudy got into the house ... "in the front door, dad." Sounds truthful enough to me. Too bad in kind of conflicts with the facts known to Knox; ie: that broken window. She should have said that the window was broken, so he probably entered that way. That is the only answer that an innocent person should offer.

It does not conflict with the facts as known by AK at the time of the conversation. By then, she knew of the broken window, of course, but she had been assured by ILE that the break-in was staging only, so RG must have entered via the door.

Her remark to her father is hardly conclusive, but it is more consistent with an innocent girl relying (perhaps foolishly) on the good faith assertions of ILE than with a guilty murderer who needs people to believe the break in represented a genuine, homicidal intruder--the proverbial "bushy-haired stranger".

That you and others try to turn it into some sort of Freudian slip (talk about your unproven psychiatric theories!) that incriminates AK just reeks of desperation.