Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #12

[Nova]

Actually, it was the MASSIVE lame excuses. As for the PL lie I do believe his name had been suggested to her by ILE.

There has been one thing that I believe has not been stated enough here or in the media. The language barriers. It has been shown on a number of occassions that misunderstandings can happen between individuals that speak the same language let alone trying to relay information between ones that speak different ones.

During AK's testimony she finally did switch to Italian as it appeared something was being lost in the translation

Of course, by the time AK testified, she had been living in an Italian prison and speaking Italian for over a year.

I know I sound like Johnny-One-Note on this subject, but all of Mignini's theories of a 3-on-1 killing ignores the language difficulties the "3" must have had. This difficulty PLUS the lack of time the three had to make a plan is what most convinces me that AK and RS are innocent.

 

[SMK]

I see no reason why RG can't be the one who covered MK with the duvet. To my knowledge, NOBODY thinks RG is a serial killer who went to the cottage to kill somebody. So assuming he was surprised during a burglary, then he killed because he thought he had to, not because he wanted to. That's exactly a context that would produce the regret that might motivate a killer to cover his victim.

I don't believe we have ever determined whether MK's bedroom locked with a key or with a "trigger" when closed. Either way, RG had no way of knowing who else might arrive next or when they would appear. By locking MK's door, he made sure that another roommate arriving would (ETA NOT) casually glance into MK's room and discover the body.

ON THE OTHER HAND, what would make AK and RS come upon MK's butchered body and feel so responsible they cover her and lock the door but don't call the police? And let's keep in mind, they BOTH have to agree on this course of action even they've only known each other for about a week.

Did they suggest the burglary to RG? How could they? They didn't know when MK would return home and they didn't know that one of the Italian flatmates (Laura?) would be gone for the night. They had no way of knowing when the cottage would be empty.

Did they suggest that RG make a sexual play for MK? This strikes me as incredibly unlikely. I'm sure it has happened, but it really seems to go against a woman's instinct toward a girlfriend. But assuming it happened, how does that make them guilty of conspiracy to rape and murder?

And why the extensive cover-up (which, let us remember, had to be devised and carried out without the two of them sharing fluency in any one language)? Surely it would be easier to turn around, agree to swear they knew nothing (if in fact they felt guilty), and call the police.

Occam's Razor = RG covered the body and locked the door on his way out.

Very good thinking, and I think I agree with you now.

 

[SMK]

Of course, by the time AK testified, she had been living in an Italian prison and speaking Italian for over a year.

I know I sound like Johnny-One-Note on this subject, but all of Mignini's theories of a 3-on-1 killing ignores the language difficulties the "3" must have had. This difficulty PLUS the lack of time the three had to make a plan is what most convinces me that AK and RS are innocent.

Nicely surmised----yes, the language barrier cannot be waved away---combine it with the window of time, and yes, guilt seems very difficult if not impossible to assume.

 

[flourish]

Actually, it was the MASSIVE lame excuses. As for the PL lie I do believe his name had been suggested to her by ILE.

There has been one thing that I believe has not been stated enough here or in the media. The language barriers. It has been shown on a number of occassions that misunderstandings can happen between individuals that speak the same language let alone trying to relay information between ones that speak different ones.

During AK's testimony she finally did switch to Italian as it appeared something was being lost in the translation

Well, then I stand corrected:

I suppose "MASSIVE lame excuses" might not have been the best words to describe AK's pointing the finger at Patrick, or placing herself in the cottage kitchen covering her ears against MK's screams, or saying that she was hit by police...perhaps "MASSIVE lies" and "MASSIVE false accusations" and/or "MASSIVE hurtful deliberate misstating of the truth" should have been used instead of "MASSIVE lame excuses."

:crazy:

I suppose it depends on whether or not one believes the AK deliberately, willingly, falsely accused PL, because that one in itself is MASSIVE enough for me.

However, I understand the argument that she was coerced, etc., I don't discount that. I am just not certain at this point, and possibly ever, that:
a) The interrogation was as long and as intense as has been reported, testified to, etc...
b) That the interrogation was of the level of pressure where accusing someone you know is innocent of MASSIVE MURDER is reasonably "understandable"..., which I know is not the right word I'm going for here, but it's the closest I can think of right now.

So, in my mind, it's possible that AK blamed PL to save herself...and really, no matter how you look at it, she did blame PL to save herself, either from the horrid interrogation that she thought would end if she told them that, or from the suspicion of murder if she indeed is guilty of murder. Either way it is a gigantic hurdle I haven't gotten past.

I understand many, if not most of you, disagree and/or have gotten past that hurdle a long time ago, but I just haven't. And I may not. I don't know. :dunno:

 

[wasnt_me]

I was reading about the appeal and saw some interesting stuff. I want to read RG's 3 hour skype call, but I can't find it anywhere. I got this, though off the website discussing RS and AK's appeal points:

Rudy’s Skype Conversation

During Rudy's skype conversation with Giacomo, Rudy is heard saying:

“They say there was a broken window, but when I was there, there wasn't any broken window; it's a window that's on the left when you're facing the house, the wooden shutters were open so I could see the window, it wasn't broken, and also when I left.”

The defense would like to know how Rudy could have known which of the windows was supposed to be broken. The defense confirms that this precise information was never printed in any newspaper at that time, In fact, it was mistakenly reported that Meredith's bedroom window was broken. The defense believes that there is a very logical reason why Rudy knew which window was broken.


The defense also points out that Amanda and Raffaele would not have chosen Filomena’s window to stage a break in. They could have simply broken the lock on the front door to stage a break in. Why would they go through all that trouble with Filomena’s window? The defense argues that Rudy knew what window was broken during his skype conversation because he broke it to gain entrance to the cottage.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/appeal4.html#anchor_172

The actual appeal is also linked to on this site but it's in italian and so is AK's appeal.

The same page also sites very detailed and logical reasons for other fallacies of the case and the mot report. I believe this page is a summary of Rs's actual appeal, so what they contend is reliable.

They also say that the 1013pm mms that was received was not stored in the phone. No one deleted it because the phone didn't store it. They claim that the phone received another one of those mms things the next day and likewise no file was stored on the phone. We know for a fact that while in police custody, no one was fiddling with her phone and deleting it. So that in addition to their proof that the cell phone was in route at that time, proves when MK died, which was at latest 10pm, imo.

Additionally they said the police informant that squealed on RG has information that the got from RG, which only the killer would know, namely how the semen got there. If this informant brings details unknown about the crime, but consistent with the crime scene, then that's all she wrote for me.

Also, this which I'd never heard of FR's testimony:

In a previous break-in, Rudy climbed a wall to enter a law office. That window was higher than the window at the cottage. Entering the cottage through Filomena’s window was an easy task for Rudy. The court chooses to ignore Filomena’s Testimony. Filomena testified that she pulled one of her shutters closed but not the other one. This gave Rudy the opportunity to enter through that window.

 

[Allusonz]

Of course, by the time AK testified, she had been living in an Italian prison and speaking Italian for over a year.

I know I sound like Johnny-One-Note on this subject, but all of Mignini's theories of a 3-on-1 killing ignores the language difficulties the "3" must have had. This difficulty PLUS the lack of time the three had to make a plan is what most convinces me that AK and RS are innocent.

Thanks for expanding this as I did gloss over that part.

 

[Allusonz]

Filomena, like AK, gave contradictory testimony. Her statement that she told Amanda to call the police over the phone was contradicted by her friend Paola who was sitting next to her and says she did not tell Amanda to call the police.

Interesting. I don't recall this interesting bit of information thus thank you!

 

[Allusonz]

I suppose "lame excuses" might not have been the best words to describe AK's pointing the finger at Patrick, or placing herself in the cottage kitchen covering her ears against MK's screams, or saying that she was hit by police...perhaps "lies" and "false accusations" and/or "hurtful deliberate misstating of the truth" should have been used instead of "lame excuses."

And that doesn't even go into the debatable things--like how close her and MK actually were (or were not), whether or not it was the norm for MK to lock her door, etc.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Did you get your acupunture though? I don't distract kinda sorta maybe :innocent:

 

[SMK]

Well, then I stand corrected:

I suppose "MASSIVE lame excuses" might not have been the best words to describe AK's pointing the finger at Patrick, or placing herself in the cottage kitchen covering her ears against MK's screams, or saying that she was hit by police...perhaps "MASSIVE lies" and "MASSIVE false accusations" and/or "MASSIVE hurtful deliberate misstating of the truth" should have been used instead of "MASSIVE lame excuses."

:crazy:

I suppose it depends on whether or not one believes the AK deliberately, willingly, falsely accused PL, because that one in itself is MASSIVE enough for me.

However, I understand the argument that she was coerced, etc., I don't discount that. I am just not certain at this point, and possibly ever, that:
a) The interrogation was as long and as intense as has been reported, testified to, etc...
b) That the interrogation was of the level of pressure where accusing someone you know is innocent of MASSIVE MURDER is reasonably "understandable"..., which I know is not the right word I'm going for here, but it's the closest I can think of right now.

So, in my mind, it's possible that AK blamed PL to save herself...and really, no matter how you look at it, she did blame PL to save herself, either from the horrid interrogation that she thought would end if she told them that, or from the suspicion of murder if she indeed is guilty of murder. Either way it is a gigantic hurdle I haven't gotten past.

I understand many, if not most of you, disagree and/or have gotten past that hurdle a long time ago, but I just haven't. And I may not. I don't know. :dunno:

It is possible, of course, that AK blamed Patrick to cover for herself, but also highly improbable. IF AK had brought up Patrick on her own, I might think so. BUT, it was ILE who made a huge deal over an innocuous and simple text messaging between them, thus raising the possibility in Amanda's own mind that he may have been the killer. After all, how much did she really know him, and how far could she actually vouch for his character? She immediately discounted her tale, saying it was "like a vision, unreal" whereas being at Raff's was "real". LE it was who brought in Patrick, and they - as he himself now admits in his litigation - bear the liability.

 

[OldSteve]

BBM

To my knowledge as well they never had any further contact. Then again they would not be able to if they were potential witnesses against her

Is that true - that a potential witness cannot visit? In the US there is what's called a "hostile witness"...

 

[OldSteve]

So true but we don't know when FR might of come back. I don't know why I keep comming back to her but I do. She was quick to send her boyfriend yet had his car. She changed her story 3 times regarding the shutters, and they were in town and she did have a key. As well she called a lawyer immediately, and as the person responsible for the rent if someone were to have an additional key it would of been her

I agree with you and I keep coming back to her as well - she seemed very quick to point a finger at AK....

 

[wasnt_me]

Also, this which I'd never heard of FR's testimony:

In a previous break-in, Rudy climbed a wall to enter a law office. That window was higher than the window at the cottage. Entering the cottage through Filomena’s window was an easy task for Rudy. The court chooses to ignore Filomena’s Testimony. Filomena testified that she pulled one of her shutters closed but not the other one. This gave Rudy the opportunity to enter through that window.
__________________

I put this in my post last night. It further indicates differing testimony of RF. Not only this, but I had heard that because she was pursuing a legal degree, she had friends in the legal system, so that lent more credibility to her statements than need be.

 

[SMK]

@ wasnt_me I agree all of this should be taken into consideration. I guess I always assumed that Guede alone should be suspected, when I found the evidence against Knox and Sollecito and the whole sex game gone wrong theory was full of holes. But in your own opinion, do you believe it is possible that Filomina was involved? Through drugs, etc.? Or was she simply quick to point the finger at Knox because Knox was "the odd girl out"? You are not the first person - indeed there have been quite a number, in various blog posts and articles - to point out 1. inconsistencies in FR's story 2. the fact that LI believed all FR said, and nothing AK said.....anyway, what is your thinking on her? Just trying to get a grasp....:waitasec:

 

[miley]

I was reading about the appeal and saw some interesting stuff. I want to read RG's 3 hour skype call, but I can't find it anywhere.

There were several skype conversations that stretched out over the course of a few days and I've had trouble finding the transcripts too...
here is one timesonline

(RE Rudy's sentence reduction) It was taken into consideration (by the judge) that Rudy came back from Germany on his own but I'm not so sure he did... I've even read (somewhere) that Rudy initially gave a false name.

At this point during the Skype conversation, Fabio Giobbi, the deputy chief police at Perugia, wrote a note for Mr Guede’s contact, suggesting that he offer to wire him money so that he could return to Italy and talk to a lawyer “to clear things up”. The friend, still acting on police instructions, did so, giving Mr Guede the times of connecting trains that would get him to Milan the next afternoon via Cologne and Frankfurt. Police wired 50 euros to him via Western Union in Dusseldorf.

With the trap set, Italian police teams set off for Germany and Milan. Mr Guede did not pick the money up, however. Instead he caught a local train from Koblenz to Mainz, only to be detained for travelling without a ticket. It is not clear whether he changed trains because he suspected a trap and had decided not to go back to Italy after all.
http://clicker.indygobox.com/link.p...o.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2913150.ece​

 

[miley]

The defense would like to know how Rudy could have known which of the windows was supposed to be broken. The defense confirms that this precise information was never printed in any newspaper at that time, In fact, it was mistakenly reported that Meredith's bedroom window was broken. The defense believes that there is a very logical reason why Rudy knew which window was broken.
[/B][/I]http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/appeal4.html#anchor_172

I always thought it was interesting that early reports say not all of the broken glass was found

from www.timesonline.co.uk
Nov. 4, 2007 (snip)...detectives continued to search for a murder weapon, which they believe to be a knife or possibly a shard of broken glass.

(snip)Not all the broken glass from Kercher’s window has been accounted for.
​

 

[flourish]

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Did you get your acupunture though? I don't distract kinda sorta maybe :innocent:

I did, thanks In fact, I had a photo taken to share with ya'll:

(http://newmoonjournal.blogs.com/the_new_moon_journal/Pinhead_profile.jg)


Are you ready to be surprised?
I don't buy into the prosecutions narrative in this case. I also have gotten to the point where I'm thinking AK and RS may not have done any stabbing, and may not have even been in the room during the murder.

:thud:

However, I'm still not convinced that AK, and by default, RS, didn't have something to do with MK's murder, either before, during (present in cottage during), and/or after. It's also my strong belief that if they were involved in set up and/or cover-up, then they are accessories to, and culpable in, the murder.

So, if the question is, "flourish, do you believe AK and RS are guilty as presented in court?" my answer is "no." But if the question is, "flourish, do you believe AK and RS are guilty of participating in the murder of MK?" my answer is "I don't know, but it's a definite possibility."

:seeya:

 

[SMK]

I did, thanks In fact, I had a photo taken to share with ya'll:

(http://newmoonjournal.blogs.com/the_new_moon_journal/Pinhead_profile.jg)


Are you ready to be surprised?
I don't buy into the prosecutions narrative in this case. I also have gotten to the point where I'm thinking AK and RS may not have done any stabbing, and may not have even been in the room during the murder.

:thud:

However, I'm still not convinced that AK, and by default, RS, didn't have something to do with MK's murder, either before, during (present in cottage during), and/or after. It's also my strong belief that if they were involved in set up and/or cover-up, then they are accessories to, and culpable in, the murder.

So, if the question is, "flourish, do you believe AK and RS are guilty as presented in court?" my answer is "no." But if the question is, "flourish, do you believe AK and RS are guilty of participating in the murder of MK?" my answer is "I don't know, but it's a definite possibility."

:seeya:

I waver between - most of the time - thinking AK and RS had nothing to do with it, and - far more seldom - thinking they somehow were involved, peripherally. Thanks for your input! Like the acupunture pic :floorlaugh:

 

[Nova]

Well, then I stand corrected:

I suppose "MASSIVE lame excuses" might not have been the best words to describe AK's pointing the finger at Patrick, or placing herself in the cottage kitchen covering her ears against MK's screams, or saying that she was hit by police...perhaps "MASSIVE lies" and "MASSIVE false accusations" and/or "MASSIVE hurtful deliberate misstating of the truth" should have been used instead of "MASSIVE lame excuses."

:crazy:

I suppose it depends on whether or not one believes the AK deliberately, willingly, falsely accused PL, because that one in itself is MASSIVE enough for me.

However, I understand the argument that she was coerced, etc., I don't discount that. I am just not certain at this point, and possibly ever, that:
a) The interrogation was as long and as intense as has been reported, testified to, etc...
b) That the interrogation was of the level of pressure where accusing someone you know is innocent of MASSIVE MURDER is reasonably "understandable"..., which I know is not the right word I'm going for here, but it's the closest I can think of right now.

So, in my mind, it's possible that AK blamed PL to save herself...and really, no matter how you look at it, she did blame PL to save herself, either from the horrid interrogation that she thought would end if she told them that, or from the suspicion of murder if she indeed is guilty of murder. Either way it is a gigantic hurdle I haven't gotten past.

I understand many, if not most of you, disagree and/or have gotten past that hurdle a long time ago, but I just haven't. And I may not. I don't know. :dunno:

flourish, I swear I'm not trying to strong-arm you and I don't expect you to agree suddenly because of the point I'm about to make.

Of course I don't have a transcript or video, but based on similar cases, I will bet that AK was being told something to the effect of "We have indisputable proof PL killed her, we just need you to confirm that you saw him there."

So under pressure it doesn't come to seem like accusing an innocent man, it seems like a minor lie that merely adds to the "irrefutable" evidence the police already have. In other words, it is presented to the interrogation target as accusing a GUILTY man, not an innocent one.

 

[Nova]

Thanks for expanding this as I did gloss over that part.

No, you didn't. I just feel so strongly about the language problem that I had to pile on.

 

[Nova]

Is that true - that a potential witness cannot visit? In the US there is what's called a "hostile witness"...

I don't know about Italian law and witnesses.

In the U.S. it is common to bar witnesses from the courtroom until after they are finished testifying, but I've never heard of a rule barring witnesses from meeting outside the court. (It wouldn't surprise me if attorneys strongly advise witnesses to stay away from one another to avoid the appearance of collusion, but I've never heard of a law that says they can't speak. Obviously, if it were proved that they agreed to lie, that would be a crime.)

A "hostile witness" is something else entirely in the U.S. A lawyer isn't supposed to ask his own witness leading questions. S/he's supposed to ask open questions such as, "What happened after you entered the room?" rather than "Then you saw the gun, right? And you picked it up, correct? And you pointed it at the victim, didn't you?"

But in cases where a lawyer's own witness offers testimony that is detrimental to that lawyer's case, the lawyer may ask the judge to declare that witness "hostile," which allows the lawyer to ask leading questions of his own witness. The witnesses of opposing counsel are always assumed to be hostile, thus leading questions are always allowed during cross-examination.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_witness