Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #11

[Malkmus]

In the case of the law, I believe lawmakers are aware of the apparent contradiction. But the thinking is that the jury is 12 women and men (in most states in the U.S./different in Italy, I know) who are "reasonable people" (the mentally deficient and biased having been excused). And those 12--working together--are the best judges of what is "reasonable."

But I am not exaggerating when I say that on the murder trial where I was a juror, we spent a good half a day on the term, because different levels of murder and manslaughter depend on what are "reasonable" beliefs and what a "reasonable" person would do.

This has probably been brought up here already (I've been busy and unable to follow this thread closely) but I just don't see how reasonable doubt was even debated in this trial when one reads something like this:

[Judge Massei] deliberated with the jurors and was looked to as the “expert” in the case. They never debated Amanda and Raffaele’s guilt or innocence, only whether they should get life (30 years) or a lesser sentence. They felt they were being kind when they gave Amanda 26 years; Raffaele, 25.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2...-bloody-footprints-tested-negative-for-blood/

I guess I have a hard time conceiving of a jury deliberation where there is a "leader" so to speak, who directs the other jurors on the level of punishment to doll out, but not discuss innocence or guilt, since that one person has already made up their mind. This may explain why certain jury members were crying after the verdict was read and why they are quoted as not even being sure of what AK or RS did that night.

 

[SMK]

This has probably been brought up here already (I've been busy and unable to follow this thread closely) but I just don't see how reasonable doubt was even debated in this trial when one reads something like this:



http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2...-bloody-footprints-tested-negative-for-blood/

I guess I have a hard time conceiving of a jury deliberation where there is a "leader" so to speak, who directs the other jurors on the level of punishment to doll out, but not discuss innocence or guilt, since that one person has already made up their mind. This may explain why certain jury members were crying after the verdict was read and why they are quoted as not even being sure of what AK or RS did that night.

Yes, this is what is so very, very troublesome about this case. It seems it was a foregone conclusion, and this is not on par with justice. Justice meted out has first to be deliberated in earnest.

 

[SMK]

Regarding the outcome of the appeal trial:
I was speaking with someone on Injustice in Perugia, who stated to the effect that:
1. As Judge Hellman granted a review of "key" pieces of evidence (so defined by the prosecution). It follows that:
2. All of the rest of the evidence is necessarily secondary; Hence:
3. It can only be part of a scenario in which the key evidence is considered incontrovertible. And so:
4. If these key pieces of evidence are dismissed, it follows that:
5. The other evidence and the scenario it supports collapse. Thus,
6. If these key evidential items are dismissed, the case is done, regardless of what those who believe that the convictions will stand are saying. This is a transposition of what a poster sirius02 said in response to my question.

I found this quite compelling. What are the odds, I wonder, for May 21?

 

[sherlockh]

Regarding the outcome of the appeal trial:
I was speaking with someone on Injustice in Perugia, who stated to the effect that:
1. As Judge Hellman granted a review of "key" pieces of evidence (so defined by the prosecution). It follows that:
2. All of the rest of the evidence is necessarily secondary; Hence:
3. It can only be part of a scenario in which the key evidence is considered incontrovertible. And so:
4. If these key pieces of evidence are dismissed, it follows that:
5. The other evidence and the scenario it supports collapse. Thus,
6. If these key evidential items are dismissed, the case is done, regardless of what those who believe that the convictions will stand are saying. This is a transposition of what a poster sirius02 said in response to my question.

I found this quite compelling. What are the odds, I wonder, for May 21?

Wishful thinking, and a downplay of the footprint and other DNA evidence IMO. May 21st is the presentation of the DNA review. I think there are 1 or 2 more trial dates set for June or July but then there is a 6 week vacation where the courts are closed. It is expected that any final ruling will be after the break and that would be about September.

 

[SMK]

Wishful thinking, and a downplay of the footprint and other DNA evidence IMO. May 21st is the presentation of the DNA review. I think there are 1 or 2 more trial dates set for June or July but then there is a 6 week vacation where the courts are closed. It is expected that any final ruling will be after the break and that would be about September.

Okie.

 

[wasnt_me]

wasnt me,

PL did text amanda that night and told her she didn't have to come in to work, after sending a reply back, amanda said she turned her phone off... a) she didn't want PL to call her back in to work and b) she wanted to conserve her battery for the following day trip.

Patrick says he didn't say those things in the article and the newspaper made a public or personal (or whatever) apology - he doesn't like Amanda (at all)... Frank S. interviewed him:
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/03/when-truth-comes-out.html

Thanks, but the quotes I put in "seem" to be taken from court documents. I'll have to double check and get back to you, unless someone else explains in the meantime about this "firing" mystery.

 

[wasnt_me]

Some examples. It was Filomena that lifted up items on the floor in her room, FR and her boyfriend were the ones that took a walk around the cottage, FR testified to 3 different things regarding the closure of the shutters, FR was to leave for the weekend but instead stayed, FR told AK to phone MK she did not do it herself, FR had her boyfriends car but phoned him to go to the cottage instead of going there herself right away things like that

And it was FR's ransacked room and no one elses. I've always wondered why AK didn't ransack ehr own room to make herself look like a victim, too. Isn't that what people who set these things up do? I assumed AK would ransack her own room to say "Look! I'm victim, too! I surely didn't do this to myself!"

 

[wasnt_me]

They werent standing outside with a mop. That was another false report perpetrated by the media early on and its had a hard time dying. Amanda had put away the mop in the closet when the pp arrived. People sometimes wait until the next day to clean messes, especially young college students who are too busy smoking pot and having sex. She didn't just go back to the cottage to get the mop, she also went to shower and get clothes for their trip that day.

My take was that AK had moved it into the house or into the kitchen when they returned with it. I think it somehow wound up outside on the porch as investigators began their work. I think that's how that myth got around about them having the mop. Because isn't the mop in that big, red bucket we see on the porch? If not, I guess I'm "making stuff up" again.

 

[wasnt_me]

not from google translation:

Police forensic scientists testified during the hearings that Mr Guede's DNA was on Ms Kercher's vaginal tampon, her bloodstained pillow, her bra, and her bag and on toilet paper.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5028996.ece​

Maybe the tampon or period is the reason he didnt rape her. Once he realized that it was her time of the month, maybe somehow he just couldn't go through with it? Ironic, given the method of death, but I think MK got out of his control and he felt forced to stab her or he accidentally did it and felt he had to keep going to finish the job.

If the word tampon was translated wrong, AK still said she thought the blood in the bathroom was period blood. she shared a bathroom with the victim, so it's reasonable that she might know if MK was on her period.

 

[wasnt_me]

Could AK and RS been so stoned that they had no idea of what happened to MK the night before, and upon seeing MK murdered in her room that morning thought that they might have been involved, but just could not remember, and so they closed and locked MK's door, and staged the break-in.

ETA: Maybe so stoned they actually saw what happened and did nothing... and this they remembered the next morning.

When all is said and done, this is my best theory...

beats the sex game that only one participates in and doesn't even complete gone wrong theory.

 

[jjenny]

beats the sex game that only one participates in and doesn't even complete gone wrong theory.

I just don't think pot alone would lead to complete memory loss. Unless they have taken something else, but they haven't admitted to anything else but pot, right?

 

[jjenny]

Doctors are 'failing to spot Asperger's in girls'
It is a condition on the autistic spectrum that has long been known to affect boys, who may have obsessive interests or struggle to make friends. Now an expert says many more girls have it than was thought, and failure to diagnose them can lead to misery and self-harm. Amelia Hill reportshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/apr/12/autism-aspergers-girls

I don't see anything to suggest she has Asperger's. She had plenty of friends in US as far as I can tell.

 

[wasnt_me]

Cleaing a water spill the next day is reasonable. I have had pipe leaks, wiped up the worse of it, had it fixed, then cleaned it well after the plumber fixed it.

Many times I will ask who and when did this spill happen to my children. Many times I will get I don't know not because they are lying simply because that was not the most important thing on their mind at the time

Conversely, I do remember a time when something that was very precious to me was accidently broke and I received a call immediately and they were upset. Not because of the cost but they knew the sentimental value it held for me

These are likely scenerios, but we must remember that RS claimed that he didn't have enough material to absorb it all. so then it IS reasonable that it is left. I had a flood to my ankles in my basement and it stayed there for days as I tried so suck it all up with a carpet cleaner. took FOREVER.

That's why I said in another post, but no one responded, if you want to know if the leak really happened, ask the Landlord. Wouldn't he know about this leak and water damage from water standing for that long? I don't know how much water it was, so there's a chance he might not have been told.

 

[flourish]

I don't think we have enough information to even reasonably speculate as to Asperger's. Asperger's falls on the autism spectrum, which is all very complicated. Additionally, the definitions of all autism spectrum disorders differ depending on whether you're talking about a medical diagnosis, or whether or not a student qualifies for a special education IFSP/IEP (plan), etc. etc.

Looking only at the DSM-IV edition (the standard diagnostic manual used in the United States), we see that a person must exhibit a certain amount of symptoms/criteria and must have an effect on the person's life to a certain degree, and can't be otherwise accounted for. Here (BBM and spacing is weird due to copying and pasting that I don't want to fix):

Diagnostic Criteria for 299.00 Autistic Disorder

Six or more items from (1), (2), and (3), with at least two from (1), and one each from (2) and (3):
qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction
failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest)
lack of social or emotional reciprocity.
qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:
delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime)
in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others
stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language
lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level
restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:
encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
stereotyped and repetitive motor manners (e.g., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
persistent preoccupation with parts of objects
Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years: (1) social interaction, (2) language as used in social communication, or (3) symbolic or imaginative play.
The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett’s Disorder or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder.

That's for autism, here's for Asperger's, which is commonly recognized as being on the autism spectrum and/or falling under the "autism umbrella," if you will:

Diagnostic Criteria for 299.80 Asperger's Disorder

Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction
failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
lack of social or emotional reciprocity
Restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:
encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity of focus
apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
persistent preoccupation with parts of objects
The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
There is no clinically significant general delay in language (e.g., single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years).
There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self-help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interaction), and curiosity about the environment in childhood.
Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Schizophrenia.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html

That doesn't even begin to discuss "Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (Including Atypical Autism)," "Rett's Disorder," or "Childhood Disintegrative Disorder."

And let us not forget that individuals who would fit the current criteria for all of the above were misdiagnosed as having mental retardation or other developmental disabilities. As far as I know, Amanda wasn't diagnosed with any sort of personality, learning, developmental, physical, or other deficiencies or issues at any time in her life.

Even with ALL that being said, let's just say that hypothetically, Amanda is a "high-functioning" individual with Asperger's. What would that really even tell us? Did she misread Meredith's social cues, think she wanted a three-some and it all went bad from there? Did she misread RG's social cues and think he was innocently wanting to court MK? Did she misread LE's social cues and confess because of that? Who could say? No one, IMO.

In any case, IMO it's a moot point, because there is no evidence that AK has any type or autism spectrum disorder.

Sorry this was so long.

 

[wasnt_me]

The vast majority of the population who sleep with others would have exactly the same alibi for that night: I was asleep with my partner and can't know what s/he did while I was unconscious.

Then there's the percentage of the population who sleep alone who have even less in terms of alibis.

That this is constantly reiterated as "RS and AK have no alibis" for the night of the crime is nonsense. By the same token, I have no alibi for that night either; nor does my partner.

And if my Huskies could talk and be my alibi, LE would probably just say the huskies were either covering for me, or in on it.

 

[wasnt_me]

And while you're at it, what time did you eat dinner five days ago? (Doesn't count if it was a night when you had to be somewhere at a specific time.)

I know I couldn't say. I hope I'd know enough not to guess for the police.

Especially considering that your friend had been murdered on the night in question in your house and you fear it could have happened to you had you been there. It's terrifying and you're also mourning. So under those conditions, I doubt I'd remember, especially because I can't even remember right now. That would have been last wednesday. I know what I MIGHT have eaten, if I ate dinner (sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.) but I have no clue what time it could have been. I got off work at 5pm, but I can eat as late a midnight, seriously, because I forget to eat. Like today, all I had was a chick-fila at lunch time. I forgot dinner. I might go eat now that I'm talking about it, but that's really not something I keep up with. In my house, there aren't many clocks or mirrors, so I don't keep up with the time, either.

 

[wasnt_me]

Exactly. I think a lot of this boils down to people either having excellent or rather poor memory (myself). I relate a lot to the supposed "guilty behavior" in this case because I have such trouble remembering when exactly things happened too. I'm not afraid to admit that if you asked me what I did last Wednesday night I haven' the slightest clue. Maybe I went to the gym after work, maybe I watched some TV instead or read a book. The only thing I know for sure is that since I went out Thursday with friends so that Wednesday I didn't. Beats me what I did! It's scary but my bad memory would probably land me in a Perugian jail cell to rot. Just a guess, but I assume people like Fred must just have excellent memory - something they can't be faulted for. But they need to understand that we're not all wired that way.

Me, too, except, thanks to this case, I know know that all my websluething can probably be traced on my computer, if they don't destroy the computer. So They can probably go back to wednesday and see I was too busy discussing this murder to participate in one myself, hypothetically speaking of course.

 

[jjenny]

Especially considering that your friend had been murdered on the night in question in your house and you fear it could have happened to you had you been there. It's terrifying and you're also mourning. So under those conditions, I doubt I'd remember, especially because I can't even remember right now. That would have been last wednesday. I know what I MIGHT have eaten, if I ate dinner (sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.) but I have no clue what time it could have been. I got off work at 5pm, but I can eat as late a midnight, seriously, because I forget to eat. Like today, all I had was a chick-fila at lunch time. I forgot dinner. I might go eat now that I'm talking about it, but that's really not something I keep up with. In my house, there aren't many clocks or mirrors, so I don't keep up with the time, either.

She is a 20 year old young woman, not some 80 year old grandmother.
Her memory should presumably be good enough to remember what she did a few days ago. Of course who knows what pot use might have done to her memory, but who exactly is to blame for that?

 

[wasnt_me]

Obviously, she was way too accommodating to her interrogators.

She should have demanded a lawyer. Lesson for us all, I think.

I completely agree with this. Reading her testimony, you can even tell that she was STILL trying to be accomodating in her answers. And as she explained what had happened in the interrogation, I totally could see that it is the kind of person she is. She wants to provide answers and please an authority figure. She sounded like she was even afraid to correct them and she just went along with what they were doing out of fear, confusion or respect. then she got to thinking about it, and was like "wait a minute."

Even in her explanations about Patrick, she seemed to trust that the police had pushed PL at her for a reason. So she was saying in her statement that, she'd believed "at the time of the statement" that it was him because of of ILE. She said she couldn't say for certain that he hadn't been there. She could only say that SHE hadn't been there. People take that to mean that she refused to absolve him, and left him sitting in a jail cell on purpose.

What she did, in my opinion, was assume the police had something on PL and that's why they pressed her for a statement about him. Then she realized later that she'd given them statements to use against PL, but she really hadn't even seen him. She seemed confused because they'd ask her to imagine and guess if something could have happened. If she said it could have, then they wrote it in her statement.

TO me, she seemed lost, just going along with it kind of like a person trying to stop a car with no brakes.

I've been interrogated that way by my mom when i was younger. She THOUGHT she had all the answers and wouldnt take my answers as true, so I'd tell her answers that matched her scenerio as long as they didn't get me in trouble, just to get her off my back. Men I know have claimed to do this to their wives all the time. Now, doing it with LE, I can't do it, but apparently, others do it.
That's my opinion.

 

[wasnt_me]

She is a 20 year old young woman, not some 80 year old grandmother.
Her memory should presumably be good enough to remember what she did a few days ago. Of course who knows what pot use might have done to her memory, but who exactly is to blame for that?

Wow now I'm an 80 year old grandmother? I ask this because i just said my memory was bad in the same quote. I am not anywhere CLOSE to 80. I think it's unreasonable to say that just because she's a pothead, she deserves a murder sentence if being a pothead causes her to not remember.