Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #10

[Nova]

This is what I'm saying:

RS and AK were at the cottage the day of the murder up until 4pm.

They were the last to leave before MK returned home.

RS and AK love hugging and smooching. Maybe they weren't paying attention and didn't latch the door properly at 4pm when they left because they were busy hugging and smooching.

The door swings open and stays that way until RG happens along sometime before 8:53pm. He sees the open door. He sees it as he chance to burgle. He goes in there and CLOSES the door and latches it.

MK happens home, opens the door and latches it. She goes in her room. RG is on the toilet and hears her. He attacks her.

AK returns home, sees the door open and thinks to herself "Oh, my god, I left this door open all friggin night." Or something like that. Then she sees what's happened and stages the break in, because she feels guilty that she was the one who left the door latched unproperly at 4pm the previous day.

Now I don't know if that's possible unless it's true that she then found MK's keys and locked the murder room to distance herself from MK as she staged the breakin.

Does that make more sense?
**for those who don't know, I'm completely guessing up another scenerio.

Oh, of course. Yes, it makes sense and I should have figured it out. The point being that (hypothetically) RG entered due to AK's negligence BEFORE MK returned home. Yes, of course, AK would feel guilt for that. (I don't see her staging a break-in over it, but I can see the guilt.) I'm sorry you had to explain it twice.

 

[Allusonz]

I think it was around 10:30 or 11:30 ... and the time of death has never been narrowed down much more than between 9:30 and midnight.

Actually the medium time time for digestion is 82 minutes. IIRC there initially had been some confusion as to the time she had last ate as well the prosecution thought that there had been an error made but in fact the duodenum had in fact been tied off correctly and was confirmed as he video taped the autopsy thus I believe the only one trying to extend the time was the prosecution

 

[sherlockh]

I believe there are other issues with her statement such as the time of which she stated she heard of the death.

Some witnesses were not so sure about the time they heard or saw something, other witnesses were more sure. Maria Ilaria Dramis for example was sure that she went to bed about 11:30pm when she heard running footsteps. Everything combined Massei puts the time of the fatal attack and running at about 11:30pm.

 

[Nova]

It's extremely common among teenagers,I also know some people in their twenties that abuse Xanax.It's easy to get a prescription.
I've seen people that mixed Xanax with alcohol act really goofy,I've had the same conversation with the same person twice,just to see if she would remember and a lot of times I've seen people react more aggressive than they normally would or make a big deal out of little things.
Complete black outs are very common if you mix xanax and alcohol.

"Poly-drug addiction, the simultaneous abuse of more than one drug, is a dangerous and popular activity. The mixing of drugs can have deadly effects. Interaction between drugs can be deadlier than accidental overdose on a single drug. Certain drugs potentiate the effects of other drugs. With pontentiation, overdose or adverse reactions occur at a fraction of the dose it would require with a single drug. Generally, the most dangerous drugs to mix are depressants. Heroin and Xanax is one deadly combination. Mixing the two can cause the user to slip into unconsciousness and very possibly die. Alcohol and Xanax causes the same effect. However, with Xanax and alcohol people black out for a period time without any recollection of events during the blackout. Some commit violent acts with no recall. GHB and Xanax will cause unconsciousness, convulsions, and death. Oxycontin classified as an opiate, it is similar to heroin. Mixing depressants decreases respiratory function leading to death.

Read more: http://healthmad.com/addiction/heroin-meth-xanax-and-alcohol-poly-drug-abuse/#ixzz1JYDjFasv

That's my primary experience: that I often repeat something I said while mixing alcohol and xanax. Thus far I haven't forgotten anything as major as a murder, but then I haven't committed a murder so we don't have a fair test.

 

[Nova]

I'll never buy that she told him to rob her own house. If they get robbed, there's no rent, they get kicked out. but I understand it's just a theory.

True. And once he broke in, who's to say he would only take cash? But if he stole AK's laptop, she couldn't exactly turn him in, could she?

That isn't to say AK didn't say something facetiously, but I doubt she seriously suggested a robbery.

 

[Nova]

I was reading over RS's statement, translated of course.

http://www.corriere.it/english/articoli/2007/11_Novembre/07/perudia_murder.shtml

This is the one where he removes AK's alibi. I wonder what they said to him that made him change his story even against his witness who places him and AK at his apartment. The witness whose mom needed RS to pick up a suitcase or something.

I think the court believed that witness, so I just really wonder, if that witness was valid, what could have happened in the interrogation room to make RS say the things we know are untrue, according to that witness, his father, and I guess the computer, and cell towers, right? indicated. Don't all those things contradict what he says in this story?

Correct me if I'm wrong, or help me pick the parts in his statement that contradict factual evidence--even evidence in his favor.

You're right that little in the statement coincides with what was later learned from his father and from computer records. Again, we have a statement aimed at getting away from aggressive interrogation rather than truth telling.

My guess is RS was told that AK had recanted her alibi of him or that ILE had iron-clad proof that she was at her own apartment during the hours of 9 to 1. Thus, RS thought it in his best interest to put her elsewhere during those hours.

But again it's a preposterous lie, because he doesn't even put AK back at his apartment until 1, yet we know she spoke to the friend who came by to say she didn't need a ride to the airport, and RS told his father that AK was there at the apartment during a phone call.

Classic coerced testimony.

 

[Nova]

I was just watching a video of police questioning a witness/suspect in a murder investigation ... thinking about coercion. What occurred to me is that police are always trying to coerce facts out of witnesses/suspects ... that's what they do, that's why they're interviewing people. They're not having a social visit. Of course there was some coercion when Knox was questioned as a witness ... police knew that her alibi was bogus, and they were trying to get the truth out of her.

I spent a couple of summers studying in Italy. They're hot headed people ... not quite as hot headed as the Spaniards, but hot headed compared to Northern Europeans. It's normal for them to be passionate, emotional and even sometimes raise their voices. That's part of the culture.

So much is made of Italian police raising their voices while coercing information out of a witness that they know is a liar (Knox) ... as though they're doing something wrong. I kind of think that's to be expected, since police coerce information out of reluctant witnesses, and Italians sometimes raise their voices. What I'm saying is that people seem to object to police doing their jobs in Italy when it results in the arrest of Knox.

otto, I won't opine about the hotheadedness of Italians, but you are right that many of these interrogation techniques are standard operating procedure.

The problem is the ever-growing body of evidence that those techniques quite often produce false testimony.

 

[Nova]

Homolka and Bernardo were in bed within a few hours of meeting and were attached at the hip from then on, just like AK and RS. KH and PB attacked Karla's sister. I suspect it took a lot of convincing to get KH to sacrifice her sister. If the target had been a stranger, perhaps their sexual attack on an innocent victim would have happened sooner. They didn't set out to murder their first victim, but things got out of hand and she died ... the attack on Meredith was not considered a premeditated murder, but rather a situation that quickly deteriorated to murder.

So you see Bernardo as the dominant partner in that homicidal pair.

Yet Mignini sees Amanda Knox as dominant not only in a pair, but in a trio.

Big difference!

 

[claudicici]

That's my primary experience: that I often repeat something I said while mixing alcohol and xanax. Thus far I haven't forgotten anything as major as a murder, but then I haven't committed a murder so we don't have a fair test.

Are you sure about that ? jk :crazy:

 

[ziggy]

Homolka and Bernardo were in bed within a few hours of meeting and were attached at the hip from then on, just like AK and RS. KH and PB attacked Karla's sister. I suspect it took a lot of convincing to get KH to sacrifice her sister. If the target had been a stranger, perhaps their sexual attack on an innocent victim would have happened sooner. They didn't set out to murder their first victim, but things got out of hand and she died ... the attack on Meredith was not considered a premeditated murder, but rather a situation that quickly deteriorated to murder.

Except one of them was ALREADY a serial rapist Hmmmm. curious. Don't see that element of prior bad conduct. Don't see any crazed sexual patterns in their past; no kinky photos??? I think it's ridiculous to even compare these two couples. But that's just otto, er I mean me (fraudian slip?)

 

[SMK]

I'll never buy that she told him to rob her own house. If they get robbed, there's no rent, they get kicked out. but I understand it's just a theory.

I am assuming , if reports of her being unliked at that point are true, that maybe she wanted to get kicked out and live with Raffaele. Maybe she viewed it as a prank, but did not think it would turn violent.

 

[sherlockh]

You're right that little in the statement coincides with what was later learned from his father and from computer records. Again, we have a statement aimed at getting away from aggressive interrogation rather than truth telling.

My guess is RS was told that AK had recanted her alibi of him or that ILE had iron-clad proof that she was at her own apartment during the hours of 9 to 1. Thus, RS thought it in his best interest to put her elsewhere during those hours.

But again it's a preposterous lie, because he doesn't even put AK back at his apartment until 1, yet we know she spoke to the friend who came by to say she didn't need a ride to the airport, and RS told his father that AK was there at the apartment during a phone call.

Classic coerced testimony.

Am I understanding this correctly? We actually have 2 coercions? Was he brainwashed by 10 people simultaneously as well? What about RG? Was he not coerced? I don't like the guy, but I just wonder why is he never included in this kind of 'logic'?

 

[SMK]

Karla Homolka and Colton Pitonyak immediately come to mind

Yes, now that you mention it, they may have been genetically evil or something. They were definitely not normal people.

 

[SMK]

Some guy in Texas confessed to murder after 2 hours, where during one hour he and the investigators didn't speak the same language?

I was trying to point out police holding a theory and being unable to let go of it when the facts do not add up, of course.

 

[SMK]

wow,I have never read that e-mail before.Here is a working link to it in it's entirety

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/02/from-amanda-knox.html

There is so much that stands out to me.While I might not agree with the other analysis that "water" signifies sexual abuse,AK no doubt is a sexual person,she mentions undressing,showers,underwear whenever it's completely unnecessary.
That's just a side note,it just stood out to me,don't think it has anything to do with the crime.
The first thing that stood out to me is how she describes the last time she saw MK was when she still had blood dripping down her neck from her costume.The mention of the blood in particular really makes me think AK saw the body.
The next thing that made me think omg is how she noticed all the strange things in her house but she waits until after she mops RS kitchen floor to tell him about it.That and how she points out that she locked the door makes me think i may be right about her trying to deny what she saw.
This part however floored me and makes me think twice again how much was AK really involved in this?
" all together we checked the houe out,
talked to the polie,a nd in a big they all opened merediths door.
i was in the kitchen stadning aside, having really done my part for
the situation. " WTH does she mean???? another Freudian slip?
overall it really is sickening how much she talks about herself and whines about being hungry and freezing and having to pay rent and getting sick from vending machine food etc etc etc but not one word of remorse or empathy toward her dead friend....I really can't stand her....but that does not make her a murderer......

Thanks for checking it out. I would agree there are some very odd things Amanda says. Don't know what they mean, but did think it was interesting. I would agree that saying she saw Meredith with "her mouth dripping blood" is odd---she might have said "still with her Halloween makeup on"---makes it sound almost like a trigger. Just to play devil's advocate. The evidence, tho, does not convince me, and that is the sticking point.

 

[SMK]

My theory: well, RS or AK must have gotten up in the middle of the night or at 745am to tip off the press that a murder was about to occur. That's where they were--in the press room getting interviewed for their 15 minutes of fame about the morning story about to break.(wasnt_me)----but why on earth would they do this, if they wanted Filomena to be the one to discover? and wouldn't this put the suspicion right on them? or were you joking????
'

 

[SMK]

Am I understanding this correctly? We actually have 2 coercions? Was he brainwashed by 10 people simultaneously as well? What about RG? Was he not coerced? I don't like the guy, but I just wonder why is he never included in this kind of 'logic'?

well, there was a LOT more dna and evidence of Guede than the other 2, that is why he is not generally included....

 

[sherlockh]

well, there was a LOT more dna and evidence of Guede than the other 2, that is why he is not generally included....

Not really. It is pretty even actually. It is just that people keep repeating silly terms like there is 'NO EVIDENCE' (AK+RS) or his (RG) dna is 'ALL OVER' the room. And then make sure you put those terms in capitals and use them at least 3 times in every paragraph

 

[SMK]

Not really. It is pretty even actually. It is just that people keep repeating silly terms like there is 'NO EVIDENCE' (AK+RS) or his (RG) dna is 'ALL OVER' the room. And then make sure you put those terms in capitals and use them at least 3 times in every paragraph

Are you sure? It does seem very odd that there were so very many questions RE tiny amounts, contamination, unclear footprints. Did not seem like just talk to me, nor obviously to many others here and on other forums. And these doubters are educated and intelligent. Surely we are brighter than to just fall for words with no detailed explanation. Or don't you think so?

 

[sherlockh]

Are you sure? It does seem very odd that there were so very many questions RE tiny amounts, contamination, unclear footprints. Did not seem like just talk to me, nor obviously to many others here and on other forums. And these doubters are educated and intelligent. Surely we are brighter than to just fall for words with no detailed explanation. Or don't you think so?

Eehh .. I am not sure how to answer that Some questions I can understand but others go a little far. I don't believe there is one single piece of evidence or even a witness that is accepted by the innocence side. Everyone is being coerced, or part of the evil Mignini conspiracy. It just goes way too far. The starting point is 'they must be innocent and therefore all the evidence must be false'. It is much easier to follow the evidence, accept the verdicts and then you can still be critical of the investigation. JMO.