Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #11

[wasnt_me]

AK talks about the time she spent with the police, starting Nov 2nd. Sounds to me like the wearing down of her started immediately, which falls in line with that one investigator saying he knew she was guilty by the way her hips wiggled when she put on her footies (I think).

She claims she was at the station for several hours every day up until the 5th--6th.

LG: Thank you. Now, how much time did you spend in the Questura that night?

AK: So much, so much time. I think it was -- heck, it was so long. At least
twelve hours.

LG: Until the next morning? Or until midnight.

AK: Yes, until the next morning. And then they asked me to come back later
that morning. They told me to go home and sleep, and then to come back.
.....(removed some different topic statements about her family wanting her to come home and her refusing)...

LG: How many times did you go to the Questura in the following days, the 3rd,
the 4th, the 5th?

AK: I went back every day.

LG: And more or less for how many hours, for how much time?

AK: It depended, but it was always for several hours.

If she had to be there for hours every day, don't know why, butwas everyone else there, too?

I'd be worn the heck out, and then to go into the "declaration night" after about 4-5 days of questioning? Geez, it's grueling.

 

[claudicici]

I suppose that's possible, but we still haven't established that it's actually possible to climb up through that window, have we?

exactly,I agree,IMO ( and I've climbed many windows in my youth,lol) there is no space to place your hands to prop yourself up once you're standing on top of the crate of the bottom window to accomplish opening that window.Coming in from the roof would be a more likely possibility for me but why bother if you could break in the door? IMO certain things in RG's diary sound too convincing to be lies.Like the feeling of happiness when he went over there in the first place.IMO he was excited and actually thought he had a chance with Meredith.IMO she probably was scared or panicked or surprised when she realized what his intentions were ( and I don't think he was there to rob the place) IMO he made the leap from small time thief to killer when something about Meredith cut deep into his psych and that was not merely her being there during a robbery attempt.I keep thinking back about the vampire theme and his mother leaving him.Vampires live and love forever but only once they're dead .RG brings up Vampires in his myspace video and in his diary as well.MK was dressed as a vampire on Halloween.Maybe that's what brought about the ill fated desire in RG for her to be his forever?

 

[claudicici]

Really? Blaming MK for not behaving right and getting herself killed?

ooohhhh no,I don't think anyone is doing that or implying that AT ALL.

 

[flourish]

Oh, are you saying THAT's the reason they asked AK? Cause I couldn't figure out why they were even asking. But you're saying that they were trying to get the info in front of the jury that LE messed up the computer.

Were they not able to question computer foresensics on the stand? I think it's so weird, too, that they dismissed experts who were foreign, I guess implying to me that they'd only accept Italian experts?

Perhaps they were asking because they did not "fry" the computer, it really was "fried" when they got it, and they suspected AK of doing the "frying?"

True, but it was asked if there was any evidence of fighting.

I took that to mean, if there wasn't evidence, she didn't fight. So going on that vain, I went somewhere I have never gone before, which is considering that MK had just laid down and let it happen. As I said in the post, I imagine that a victim, even if tied up would fight, though most likely unsucessfully. I imagine the same situation if MK had been attacked by more than one. I still think she'd fight, though she'd most likely be unsuccessful. And Id assume she fought despite whether there was "evidence" of it. I take her death as "evidence" that she fought, because I can't imagine someone willingly laying their life before a to just kill them.

I could be wrong. I suppose you might not fight if a gun is involved. maybe you're too petrified to fight. But I at least like to believe the victims fight back at least some.

Hm, perhaps there isn't evidence of a fight because she was outnumbered and couldn't fight. :dunno: :cow:

 

[flourish]

exactly,I agree,IMO ( and I've climbed many windows in y youth,lol) there is no space to place your hands to prop yourself up once you're standing on top of the crate of the bottom window to accomplish opening that window.Coming in from the roof would be a more likely possibility for me but why bother if you could break in the door? IMO certain things in RG's diary sound too convincing to be lies.Like the feeling of happiness when he went over there in the first place.IMO he was excited and actually thought he had a chance with Meredith.IMO she probably was scared or panicked or surprised when she realized what his intentions were ( and I don't think he was there to rob the place) IMO he made the leap from small time thief to killer when something about Meredith cut deep into his psych and that was not merely her being there during a robbery attempt.I keep thinking back about the vampire theme and his mother leaving him.Vampires live and love forever but only once they're dead .RG brings up Vampires in his myspace video and in his diary as well.MK was dressed as a vampire on Halloween.Maybe that's what brought about the ill fated desire in RG for her to be his forever?

Interesting thoughts :elfroll:

 

[wasnt_me]

Perhaps they were asking because they did not "fry" the computer, it really was "fried" when they got it, and they suspected AK of doing the "frying?"




Hm, perhaps there isn't evidence of a fight because she was outnumbered and couldn't fight. :dunno: :cow:

No, I believe it's her own lawyer asking this question, not the prosecution. I can't imagine her own lawyer would point out that she fried her own computer.

No evidence of a fight does not mean there was not a fight. I also need to clarify that I never said there was NOT evidence of a fight. I never said there was evidence, either. I'd be willing to guess, though, that there is evidence there, whether the LE interpreted it correctly or not.

I was merely thinking about how I would view things IF there WERE no evidence of a fight. I'm sorry if I didn't explain that well, but I'd said

True, but it was asked if there was any evidence of fighting. I took that to mean, if there wasn't evidence, she didn't fight. So going on that vain, I went somewhere I have never gone before, which is considering that MK had just laid down and let it happen.

This premise is what I based the whole rest of my thought process on. And I still believe in my heart that victims fight, even if 10 people are holding them down. fighting may consist of a scream, wiggling, writhing to get away, it doesn't mean punching and doing karate kicks to me. To me, fighting means making ANY kind of effort at all to defend oneself or get away.

Most times a victim is not in a fair fight, so I am amazed at the ones who are able to get the upper hand. However, I guess to understand my point, you have to understand what i said above about what I think fighting means when it comes to a crime victim.

 

[flourish]

Me green

No, I believe it's her own lawyer asking this question, not the prosecution. I can't imagine her own lawyer would point out that she fried her own computer.

I realized where I got confused here, see below...

No evidence of a fight does not mean there was not a fight. I also need to clarify that I never said there was NOT evidence of a fight. I never said there was evidence, either. I'd be willing to guess, though, that there is evidence there, whether the LE interpreted it correctly or not.

So there could or could not have been a fight. There is either some evidence to suggest a fight, or no some evidence to suggest not a fight, but not enough to determine which one?


I was merely thinking about how I would view things IF there WERE no evidence of a fight. I'm sorry if I didn't explain that well, but I'd said

True, but it was asked if there was any evidence of fighting. I took that to mean, if there wasn't evidence, she didn't fight. So going on that vain, I went somewhere I have never gone before, which is considering that MK had just laid down and let it happen.

I have respectfully underlined (for emphasis) the statement there that makes me go :waitasec:

This premise is what I based the whole rest of my thought process on. And I still believe in my heart that victims fight, even if 10 people are holding them down. fighting may consist of a scream, wiggling, writhing to get away, it doesn't mean punching and doing karate kicks to me. To me, fighting means making ANY kind of effort at all to defend oneself or get away.

Most times a victim is not in a fair fight, so I am amazed at the ones who are able to get the upper hand. However, I guess to understand my point, you have to understand what i said above about what I think fighting means when it comes to a crime victim.

Sometimes fighting for your life means playing dead, which falls under the category of "ANY kind of effort" to survive...maybe not to "defend oneself or get away," but to "survive," which is really the ultimate goal, no? And with the deepest respect to MK, let's be clear that I am not insinuating that MK did or did not fight or used or did not use passive strategies in a quest for survival.

The defense has never received an adequate response to their questions regarding this. It appears that the prosecution is stating that it was an electrical overload. If I was the defense I would be questioning this explanation as well....

See, this is what made me think that it was LE that was asking her the question re: her computer.

What do you believe to be the appropriate response to this line of questioning. Please keep in mind that I am sure by now the defense has informed her that they fried her computer as it appears she was involved actively in her defense

LG: How do you explain that when your computer was subjected to examination, it was
burned up by an electric shock? Do you have any explanation?

AK: I think someone burned up my computer

Also this.

 

[Allusonz]

Oh, are you saying THAT's the reason they asked AK? Cause I couldn't figure out why they were even asking. But you're saying that they were trying to get the info in front of the jury that LE messed up the computer.

Were they not able to question computer foresensics on the stand? I think it's so weird, too, that they dismissed experts who were foreign, I guess implying to me that they'd only accept Italian experts?

Exactly. It seems that the prosecution was trying to deflect this onto AK to take away from the fact that it was their computer expert that caused this. There are a few areas where this becomes apparent but if you follow the line of questioning by the prosecution and her own defense that is all they are simply trying to do is put it in front of the jury that indeed it was a very serious error by LE. I don't believe that they expected the defense to find the activity they did which then made this a mute point and pointed back to an error of LE

flourish that is why I was asking what you would consider to be an appropriate response to this. I believe under this situation that AK did answer appropriately

GCM: Excuse me, difensore. When was the last time that you used your computer? (Mignini)

AK: I was listening to music. When I was at home, my computer was always on, and when I left I turned it off. The last time I used it must have been on Nov 1, when I came home. I changed clothes, I listened to music, I checked
this and that, and when I left, I turned it off.

LG: How do you explain that when your computer was subjected to examination, it was burned up by an electric shock? Do you have any explanation? (AK's defense lawyer)

AK: I think someone burned up my computer.

 

[Allusonz]

Just to clarify as well, it was the DNA experts that the court would not accept unless they were from Italy. Thus they are consulting/advising the Italian DNA experts and working with them.

The ballistics expert was Italian. The judge though dismissed his presentation of the breakin as he was not an expert in ROCK THROWING

He did a presentation that consisted of a video tape of how it was possible as well as photos ie to show where the rock landed.

Somehow that one picture went viral and it was then stated that even the person used in this could not get through the window just to name a few things that have been said but this was all presented at the trial.

 

[Allusonz]

AK talks about the time she spent with the police, starting Nov 2nd. Sounds to me like the wearing down of her started immediately, which falls in line with that one investigator saying he knew she was guilty by the way her hips wiggled when she put on her footies (I think).

She claims she was at the station for several hours every day up until the 5th--6th.

LG: Thank you. Now, how much time did you spend in the Questura that night?

AK: So much, so much time. I think it was -- heck, it was so long. At least
twelve hours.

LG: Until the next morning? Or until midnight.

AK: Yes, until the next morning. And then they asked me to come back later
that morning. They told me to go home and sleep, and then to come back.
.....(removed some different topic statements about her family wanting her to come home and her refusing)...

LG: How many times did you go to the Questura in the following days, the 3rd,
the 4th, the 5th?

AK: I went back every day.

LG: And more or less for how many hours, for how much time?

AK: It depended, but it was always for several hours.

If she had to be there for hours every day, don't know why, butwas everyone else there, too?

I'd be worn the heck out, and then to go into the "declaration night" after about 4-5 days of questioning? Geez, it's grueling.

I think we all would be!!!!

IIRC AK's own defense expert testified that she was at ILE just over 40 hours over I believe it to be a 4 day span which works out to approximately 10 hours per day. They were definately not focused on anyone else from the start which I believe has been shown a number of times

 

[SMK]

From her testimony, AK seems unaware of friction in the cottage:

LG: For instance on the fact that there was a certain friction between
you and-- between the roommates. The English girls all said that there
was some friction in the house over some specific facts. Do you agree with
this, with what the girls said?

AK: Well, actually, I was astonished and didn't feel right about what they said,
because I don't think I deserved that attitude. I never did anything with
them that deserved that.
LG: But was it true that there was friction in the house?

AK: For me, no.

GCM: But do you remember this? These friends of Meredith stated that Meredith had
some complaints during confrontations--

AK: Meredith--

GCM: -- if it's true, about the ways of living together, of keeping order, in
the bathroom and the house. This essentially, if I remember right, is what the
English friends said when they referred to what Meredith told them about your
behavior.

AK: Certainly. When Meredith had a problem with my behavior she just told me, and
that was it. There was nothing that stayed hidden or for which we couldn't
find some solution. If she had something to tell me, she told me.

LG: Listen, did your relations with Meredith actually change over the time period?

AK: No, it was only that I went out to work, so I didn't have time any more,
or even the energy to go around, to have a drink at Merlin's for example.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165

To me, it is a common thing for there to be some friction between college roommates. I find it chilling that this friction was brought up in the face of a murder investigation. How often does room mate friction lead to murder? It's as though they suspected AK, and it seems extreme to me.

 

[SMK]

Thank you for sharing about your son,I know I may be way off with AK and Aspberger but I do have a friend,who is an amazing person and I love him dearly but a lot of times he does seem to come across as only caring about his own interests and that's when I have to remind myself about his Asperger.It's strange because at times he seems to care so much and I know he feels just as deep as anyone else but it just comes across odd at times.

Yes, there is most definitely a problem with communication, even though the feeling is there. I am wondering if AK may have some slight version of this, as it is a continuum, and not a fixed state. There are degrees of the syndrome, and sometimes it goes undiagnosed. Thanks for your input, very important.

 

[SMK]

Originally Posted by wasnt_me
From her testimony, AK seems unaware of friction in the cottage:

And maybe it was not all that big of a deal. This is what troubles me. Why did her flatmates bring this to light in the face of a murder investigation? Can you imagine having conflict with college room mates, and it being brought in at a time like this???

 

[sherlockh]

To me, it is a common thing for there to be some friction between college roommates. I find it chilling that this friction was brought up in the face of a murder investigation. How often does room mate friction lead to murder? It's as though they suspected AK, and it seems extreme to me.

Why? They saw how AK behaved first hand, they heard the lies, they saw the fake break-in. AK was the only roommate in town with a key. What do you know about the frictions between MK and AK? How can you say those were normal? How can you say it was extreme if you weren't even there? I can understand the roommates were suspicious. The investigation only confirmed their worst fears. JMO.

 

[SMK]

Why? They saw how AK behaved first hand, they heard the lies, they saw the fake break-in. AK was the only roommate in town with a key. What do you know about the frictions between MK and AK? How can you say those were normal? How can you say it was extreme if you weren't even there? I can understand the roommates were suspicious. The investigation only confirmed their worst fears. JMO.

You are assuming that there were lies and a staged break in. I presuppose no such thing. The more I think of the TOD being moved later, the computer activity after 9:15 admitted in the Massei Report, and the whole absurd scenario that the latter supposes, the more absurd and foul this whole thing appears. Of course, we all know friction with room mates leads to rape and murder. Sorry, I was being silly.

 

[SMK]

Each time I come across this final piece of reasoning of motive from the Massei Report ( p. 367-8 ) - and it stunned me the first time I read it - I cannot see how preceding room mate friction, drugs, or any of the precedents could lead to this scenario:

Therefore it may be deduced that, accustomed to the consumption of drugs and the effects of the latter, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito participated actively in Rudy’s criminal acts aimed at overcoming Meredith’s resistance, subjugating her will and thus allowing Rudy to act out his lustful impulses; and this is considered to have happened because, for those [i.e. for people] who did not disdain the use of drugs (Amanda has stated that on that evening, before ‚making love‛, they had consumed drugs), watching films and reading comic books in which sexuality is accompanied by violence and by situations of fear, disregarding the concept of sexuality as an encounter of [two] persons moved by reciprocal and free emotion (see the comic books seized from Raffaele Sollecito and the statements on the viewing of films which had drawn the attention of the tutors of the ONAOSI College attended by Raffaele Sollecito), the prospect of helping Rudy in [his] goal of subduing Meredith in order to sexually abuse her may have seemed to be an exciting stimulant which, although unexpected, had to be tried.

Maybe it is me, but this seems absurd. Even if drugs were a factor, or preceding friction, why would this scenario come to be?

 

[SMK]

And then when I see this, after contemplating Massei's theory of motive, it finishes it off for me:

Dr. Greg Hampikian is a professor of biology at Boise State University and the director of the Idaho Innocence Project.
“We take cases primarily from Idaho, we're working on several cases right now in Idaho with people who claim to be innocent who are imprisoned,” said Hampikian.
By using DNA evidence, the Idaho Innocence Project has helped to exonerate seven people across the country. Hampikian's research has taken him around the world.
Two years ago, by chance he became involved with one of the most high profile international murder cases.
“I was trying to study how DNA evidence is used in other countries, and when I looked at the data -- I was appalled,” said Hampikian.
The data he was looking at was from the Amanda Knox case, an American student convicted of murdering her roommate at a home they shared in Perugia, Italy. Knox, as well as her ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, and another man, Rudy Guede, were all convicted in the murder of Meredith Kercher.
"The one piece of evidence that tied her to this case had such a low level of DNA with the victim on it that I think it was probably just one of these casual transfers, certainly not from a stabbing,” said Hampikian.
Hampikian volunteered his services to Knox's defense team.
After scouring over the evidence at his lab on the BSU campus, Dr. Hampikian says Knox and Sollecito are innocent of the crime.
DNA evidence points to Rudy Guede as the prime suspect.http://www.nwcn.com/home/?fId=120425444&fPath=/news/local&fDomain=10227

 

[jjenny]

You are assuming that there were lies and a staged break in. I presuppose no such thing. The more I think of the TOD being moved later, the computer activity after 9:15 admitted in the Massei Report, and the whole absurd scenario that the latter supposes, the more absurd and foul this whole thing appears. Of course, we all know friction with room mates leads to rape and murder. Sorry, I was being silly.

All kind of things can lead to murder. Look on another thread, a whole bunch of teenagers are accused of a brutal murder of a 15 year old over what appears to be your basic teenager squabbles. So for AK supporters to argue that it just couldn't be because there is no obvious motive -well that is just silly.
Because there isn't always an obvious motive.

 

[SMK]

All kind of things can lead to murder. Look on another thread, a whole bunch of teenagers are accused of a brutal murder of a 15 year old over what appears to be your basic teenager squabbles. So for AK supporters to argue that it just couldn't be because there is no obvious motive -well that is just silly.
Because there isn't always an obvious motive.

I agree there is not always obvious motive, but I am willing to bet those teen murderers were not honor students, had not excelled, and had troubled pasts.

 

[jjenny]

I agree there is not always obvious motive, but I am willing to bet those teen murderers were not honor students, had not excelled, and had troubled pasts.

Well then how do you explain Mr. Markoff, who was an excellent medical student, accused of killing a girl in a hotel room? Just because someone excels academically doesn't make them incapable of a crime.