Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #13

[Nova]

Common sense when AK tells ILE 'it was 11 or 11:30, or very late' when the VERY latest could have only been about 8:30 that she is 'fudging' on the time.
What ever happened to 'I DON'T REMEMBER' or 'I DON'T KNOW'????????

Let's hypothetically say that your 'mate' was murdered on that Tuesday night- would't what time you ate supper be easier to remember because of that?

Just repeating over and over that the evidence is faulty doesn't make it so either. Lying to murder investigators is never a 'normal' thing IMO....

Have you ever been the target of a police interrogation? I haven't either, but from reading transcripts, I can promise you that answers such as "I dont know" and "I don't remember" only invite more pressure.

Some people have VERY loose senses of time. Personally, I'm not so bad at time of day, but I'm terrible at estimating future time (i.e., how long a certain project will take); other people estimate quite well.

Although MK was murdered at night, AK didn't learn of it until the next day. If there was any heightened awareness, it would have kicked in then, not during a murder of which AK was unaware.

I WANT TO REPEAT THAT WE ARE ONLY USING FILOMENA AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW ANOTHER FLATMATE WAS TREATED. I HAVE NO REASON TO SUSPECT HER OF ANY INVOLVEMENT IN MK'S MURDER.

Now to take your list:

Filomena did not/was not:

Found at the crime scene

Pure coincidence. Both AK and FR lived there. Either one or neither one could have been there when the postal police arrived. If AK had NOT been there, you, Mignini and otto would be arguing that she was "avoiding the cottage" and that showed consciousness of guilt. (You KNOW you would!)

Lying about her whereabouts that night

As far as I know, the only lie AK told about her whereabouts was at the insistence of ILE. This is common in coerced statements because the target says whatever s/he thinks the interrogators want to hear just to relieve the pressure.

There is no credible evidence putting AK or RS anywhere but at RS' apartment on the night of the murder.

Accuse an innocent man

See above. I've never heard or read anything to suggest Filomena was subjected to a mob of interrogators such as AK faced on the night she made her statements. So we have no way of knowing how Filomena would have reacted, particularly if she were interrogated in English instead of her native language.

Change her alibi

How do you know this? Do you have transcripts of FR's statement to ILE? If so, please link, because I'm sure they would be very enlightening.

Her blood drops and dna was not mixed with the murder victims
Her bloody BARE footprints were not found by luminol

I'm not convinced the above statements have been proven with regard to AK, but let's set that side for the moment.

How do you know FR didn't leave footprints? Was FR's DNA even typed for purposes of comparison? Were her footprints measured? It seems a lot of people who should have been typed for comparison purposes were not.

But assuming arguendo that FR did not leave comparable prints and DNA, so what? AK admits she took a shower on the morning after the murder. FR wasn't home. It's perfectly reasonable to expect to find AK's footprints where FR's are not.

Her dna was not on the knife along with Meredith's

MK's DNA is not on that knife. Period. Full stop. Any DNA from MK is a figment of Stefanoni's imagination. That knife is not the murder weapon; it is too cumbersome to carry around.

That AK's DNA is on it is no surprise: she was cooking and eating at RS' apartment. FR wasn't RS' girlfriend and had no occasion to leave DNA on any of his knives.

Laugh, snuggle and kiss her boyfriend in the police station

The only video we have shows a tender and comforting kiss at the cottage. As for what transpired later at the police station, it may be just an attempt by ILE to demonize AK and RS; it may be largely the invention of the media.

But assuming it actually happened, what source are you using for appropriate behavior when your flatmate has been brutally murdered? Lots of people laugh or giggle because they are upset or otherwise uncomfortable.

Frankly, I think AK's actions seem suspicious if one assumes she killed MK. If one assumes she did not (innocent until proven guilty), they are merely the actions of a young, perhaps somewhat immature, girl who clung to her boyfriend because her family was half a world away.

Her friends did NOT say (FR) was acting suspicious, but somebody (AK) was

Perhaps AK's behavior was remarkable, perhaps it only seemed so because ILE was telling the friends that AK seemed suspicious and probably played a part in the murder. None of the friends seem to be Americans: there were a group of English girls who barely knew AK and a group of Italian flatmates and friends who knew AK a little better. It may well be that cultural differences account for all the perception that AK was behaving oddly.

But let's also remember that AK was alone in the cottage with the body (even if she didn't know it at the time), took a shower, etc. Because they shared a basic language, AK seemed closer to MK than the other flatmates. AK's allegedly "odd" behavior may be nothing more than the fact that of the surviving flatmates, she was closest to MK.

Whatever it was, however, it isn't evidence of murder.

Deflecting/projecting towards Filomena doesn't seem to apply and weakens the argument IMO.

No one has done either. I've said over and over that I don't believe FR had anything to do with the murder. (Other posters have wondered; but I am not one of them.) The only point in using Filomena is to show how most if not all of the charges against AK are either misperceptions or equally true of others in a similar position.

 

[Nova]

That's a matter of opinion. I see him as reflecting on a trial from a couple of years ago, perhaps humoring someone that wants to discuss alternate theories of the crime. The trial is over for him. Incidentally, what exactly are you referring to in terms of suggesting that he changed his opinion of the trial evidence ... a heavily edited CNN interview?

During the trial, Mignini was insistent that AK stabbed MK with the kitchen knife from RS' apartment.

In the CNN interview, he suddenly suggests that maybe AK was in another room, shouting instructions to the boys. (As Allusonz points out, no word on how AK did that without speaking Italian.)

What that demonstrates is that Mignini has no confidence in the evidence he claimed was so telling at trial. It also proves that Mignini has no problem with putting out theories (AK directing from another room) for which he has no evidence whatsoever.

That SHOULD give pause to those of you who cite Mignini as an authority. But of course it won't.

 

[otto]

Excellent point. Makes it very hard to spin any other way... but it is attempted quite often.

It strikes me as completely bizarre to suggest that Knox forgot when she ate even though she knew what time she had to work, and could easily use that time to place the times of her other activities. The movie, dinner, the water spill ... all happened before the time that she had to arrive at work, yet the following day, she tried to say that she ate at 11 PM, eventually moving the time to 9:30. She never truthfully states that she finished dinner by 8:30. It is such a blatant attempt to provide a false alibi, but she got caught in her lies - thanks to Dr Sollecito.

 

[otto]

Outside of self-defense, all murders are senseless. Thrill kills do, however, have reasons for happening, no matter how pointless and horrid they may be. Personally I feel that thrill kills happen for one of two reasons - because the thought of taking a life excites the assailant, or because the assailant feels some form of stress relief/self-empowerment from applying the ultimate form of control/dominance on another person. Most psychologists take that view as well. Either way, there is always a history of behavior that points the way towards the assailant's final fall into depravity (control issues, sadism, cutting/self-harm, depression, psychotic breakdowns, inappropriate or violent reactions to normal stimuli, abuse of heavy drugs [not pot, more like crack/meth etc], esteem issues, compensation issues, etc) - while the final acts may surprise people, the reality is that they never come 'out of the blue'. AK has no such history.

All three of the convicted murderers had issues including abandonment and a misplaced sense of entitlement. I don't want to delve into the psychology of murder because I don't know enough about it, but I do not view any of the murderers as well adjusted for their ages.

 

[Nova]

Sure, a completely senseless murder ... just like the murder of Meredith Kercher. There was no rape, no burglary ... nothing except a murder.

There is no such thing as a "completely senseless" murder from the point of view of the killer. Killers always have reasons at the moment in time they kill.

 

[otto]

During the trial, Mignini was insistent that AK stabbed MK with the kitchen knife from RS' apartment.

In the CNN interview, he suddenly suggests that maybe AK was in another room, shouting instructions to the boys. (As Allusonz points out, no word on how AK did that without speaking Italian.)

What that demonstrates is that Mignini has no confidence in the evidence he claimed was so telling at trial. It also proves that Mignini has no problem with putting put theories (AK directing from another room) for which he has no evidence whatsoever.

That SHOULD give pause to those of you who cite Mignini as an authority. But of course it won't.

Of course he has evidence of Knox in the kitchen. She told him that she was in the kitchen during the murder of Meredith Kercher, and that she did nothing to assist. He also has evidence of Knox stabbing Meredith because of DNA on the knife. In court, he presented the independent evidence (knife), but if that is refuted, then there is still the claim from Knox that she was in the kitchen. What difference does it make whether she or the evidence places her at the murder? There is nothing to place her anywhere but at the murder based on her own words and the evidence.

 

[SMK]

OK, I'll play.

1- Shouldn't she have had plenty of clothes and such since they HAD PLANNED to go to Gubio EARLY that morning? BTW... why didn't they take that morning trip?

2-3-4- No reason to 'press' or 'harass' Filomena... she didn't lie, and had an alibi for the evening THAT CHECKED OUT. AK DID know RG... and also probably knew that he 'fancied' her. AK gave absolutely NO REASON to believe her as NOTHING checked out.

5-6-7- LCN is no issue with the Italian court, and all of those 'question marks' are just internet speculations for the most part without looking at the actual evidence presented to the real jurors that made the decision of guilt.

8-9- nothing is meaningless in regards to a murder investigation. As you have probably noticed at the Casey trial thread... behavior, lying, and attitude ARE relevant in a murder investigation. In fact, comparing the evidence there to the evidence in this case... there is not really anything except circumstancial evidence, although damning as it might be.

:waitasec: ........... ...... :slap::razz: ... :tears: But for some reason I am far more convinced by the evidence in the Anthony case (though I have reasonable doubt about premeditated murder, negligent homicide and lying to LE and concealing a body are all evident. ) With Knox, I really have reasonable doubt, and much of it. NOT saying "I am positive she was not involved." Just saying I has me doubts. I has me doubts. PS: thanks for playing along :Banane35:

 

[Nova]

The change of theory was a tentative, speculative one in response to a Sun (UK newspaper) interviewer asking 'what if the knife you presented turns out not to be the murder weapon". It's the kind of hypothetical question trap that sloppy LE interviewers use to get incriminating statements out of innocent people, so I don't take his statement as anything meaningful or significant.

However, it should be noted that he is involved in the AK/RS appeal as an adviser to the lead prosecutor, a bad move PR-wise, though it's never been made clear exactly how large or small his involvement actually is.

I would provide a link to the interview article, but I can't seem to find it. It was linked to somewhere in this thread.

Sloppy questioning though it may be, I still find it significant that when asked what would happen if a major piece of evidence against AK fell apart, Mignini immediately rewrites his theory of the crime so that AK is still guilty.

What that should tell us is that AK is guilty in Mignini's eyes, REGARDLESS of the evidence and probably always was.

 

[Nova]

It strikes me as completely bizarre to suggest that Knox forgot when she ate even though she knew what time she had to work, and could easily use that time to place the times of her other activities. The movie, dinner, the water spill ... all happened before the time that she had to arrive at work, yet the following day, she tried to say that she ate at 11 PM, eventually moving the time to 9:30. She never truthfully states that she finished dinner by 8:30. It is such a blatant attempt to provide a false alibi, but she got caught in her lies - thanks to Dr Sollecito.

That's a very "left brain" way of calculating time and probably how you and I would do it. Not everyone thinks the same way, however.

Where is your proof that AK had a TOD at the time she misstated the dinner time? When were those results available and when were they revealed to AK? I'm guessing they weren't available on Nov. 2.

 

[Nova]

Of course he has evidence of Knox in the kitchen. She told him that she was in the kitchen during the murder of Meredith Kercher, and that she did nothing to assist. He also has evidence of Knox stabbing Meredith because of DNA on the knife. In court, he presented the independent evidence (knife), but if that is refuted, then there is still the claim from Knox that she was in the kitchen. What difference does it make whether she or the evidence places her at the murder? There is nothing to place her anywhere but at the murder based on her own words and the evidence.

How can anyone believe AK's claim that she was in the kitchen while Patrice Lumumba killed MK?! her story is obviously false and obviously coerced. Cherry-picking whatever part of the statement suits your purposes isn't a reasonable use of a statement.

Whatever AK may have done or not done, that statement isn't evidence.

 

[otto]

That's a very "left brain" way of calculating time and probably how you and I would do it. Not everyone thinks the same way, however.

Where is your proof that AK had a TOD at the time she misstated the dinner time? When were those results available and when were they revealed to AK? I'm guessing they weren't available on Nov. 2.

What's a TOD?

Knox instructors said that Knox was always prompt for class, so clearly she was able to know time.

As for left brain ways of calculating time, I'm left handed, therefore right brained, and I calculate time based on other reference points just like anyone else.

 

[otto]

How can anyone believe AK's claim that she was in the kitchen while Patrice Lumumba killed MK?! her story is obviously false and obviously coerced. Cherry-picking whatever part of the statement suits your purposes isn't a reasonable use of a statement.

Whatever AK may have done or not done, that statement isn't evidence.

I thought you were looking to discuss why, when asked to speculate on what would happen if the DNA was excluded, the prosecutor presented additional evidence that Knox was at the scene of the murder at the time of the murder. It makes sense to me that the prosecutor was simply pointing out that the knife DNA is not needed to place Knox at the murder. In any case, the prosecutor presented his theory of the crime a couple of years ago during trial, and he's more than welcome to speculate about alternatives any time he likes.

 

[Monzoo]

Of course he has evidence of Knox in the kitchen. She told him that she was in the kitchen during the murder of Meredith Kercher, and that she did nothing to assist. He also has evidence of Knox stabbing Meredith because of DNA on the knife. In court, he presented the independent evidence (knife), but if that is refuted, then there is still the claim from Knox that she was in the kitchen. What difference does it make whether she or the evidence places her at the murder? There is nothing to place her anywhere but at the murder based on her own words and the evidence.

One problem with using AK's statements that she was in the kitchen -- the only time she said that was in the two written (in Italian) statements from November 5. Both of these statements were thrown out by the Italian Supreme Court, and cannot be used against her in this case. If this is the evidence you are relying on, I assume that if the knife is thown out as evidence you will then believe that AK should not be convicted since there is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[otto]

One problem with using AK's statements that she was in the kitchen -- the only time she said that was in the two written (in Italian) statements from November 5. Both of these statements were thrown out by the Italian Supreme Court, and cannot be used against her in this case. If this is the evidence you are relying on, I assume that if the knife is thown out as evidence you will then believe that AK should not be convicted since there is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Right, but in terms of suggesting that the prosecution theory has changed because of speculative responses made a couple of years after the trial seems to be quite a stretch ... so in that context ... that the prosecution theory has changed, I disagree on the basis that the theory has not changed at all. The theory is that Knox was at the scene of the crime during the murder, and if the prosecutor has to speculate on what would happen if the knife DNA were to be excluded, then he can also speculate that maybe the self-incriminating statement could be included. It's all speculation, and it doesn't IMO imply that the prosecution theory has changed.

Furthermore, the guilty verdict was not based on the DNA on the knife ... that evidence was but a small piece of the complete evidence. Exclude, the knife, then look at the statements. Exclude the statements, then look at the lack of alibi. Exclude the lies and absence of alibis, then look at the staged break in. Exclude the staged break in, then look at the luminol evidence. It goes on and on ... the three convicted murderers will not suddenly become innocent because one or two pieces of evidence are reviewed during appeal.

 

[SMK]

Right, but in terms of suggesting that the prosecution theory has changed because of speculative responses made a couple of years after the trial seems to be quite a stretch ... so in that context ... that the prosecution theory has changed, I disagree on the basis that the theory has not changed at all. The theory is that Knox was at the scene of the crime during the murder, and if the prosecutor has to speculate on what would happen if the knife DNA were to be excluded, then he can also speculate that maybe the self-incriminating statement could be included. It's all speculation, and it doesn't IMO imply that the prosecution theory has changed.

Furthermore, the guilty verdict was not based on the DNA on the knife ... that evidence was but a small piece of the complete evidence. Exclude, the knife, then look at the statements. Exclude the statements, then look at the lack of alibi. Exclude the lies and absence of alibis, then look at the staged break in. Exclude the staged break in, then look at the luminol evidence. It goes on and on ... the three convicted murderers will not suddenly become innocent because one or two pieces of evidence are reviewed during appeal.

You may well be right. It makes logical sense. On the other hand: They may go through the whole sequence aforementioned by you, and decide they smell a rat, and reasonable doubt permeates all through and through. If the outcome were certain, wherefore the need for an appeal? :waitasec:

 

[dgfred]

Right, but in terms of suggesting that the prosecution theory has changed because of speculative responses made a couple of years after the trial seems to be quite a stretch ... so in that context ... that the prosecution theory has changed, I disagree on the basis that the theory has not changed at all. The theory is that Knox was at the scene of the crime during the murder, and if the prosecutor has to speculate on what would happen if the knife DNA were to be excluded, then he can also speculate that maybe the self-incriminating statement could be included. It's all speculation, and it doesn't IMO imply that the prosecution theory has changed.

Furthermore, the guilty verdict was not based on the DNA on the knife ... that evidence was but a small piece of the complete evidence. Exclude, the knife, then look at the statements. Exclude the statements, then look at the lack of alibi. Exclude the lies and absence of alibis, then look at the staged break in. Exclude the staged break in, then look at the luminol evidence. It goes on and on ... the three convicted murderers will not suddenly become innocent because one or two pieces of evidence are reviewed during appeal.

Right! As I heard a defense attorney discussing the Casey A case say: 'it is not one thing, or another, or even another... it is a MOSAIC of guilt'.

 

[otto]

You may well be right. It makes logical sense. On the other hand: They may go through the whole sequence aforementioned by you, and decide they smell a rat, and reasonable doubt permeates all through and through. If the outcome were certain, wherefore the need for an appeal? :waitasec:

Apparently in Italy every murder trial has an automatic appeal attached to it ... most likely to ensure that everything was done correctly. Since the defense wanted a review of the DNA, along with a long list of other things, they got a review of two pieces of DNA evidence. It's truly unfortunate that defense lawyers chose not to attend the original testing as they could have introduced any complaints about the testing during trial.

Similar to so many other trials, all the evidence rarely appears to be something related to a rat.

 

[dgfred]

What's a TOD?

Knox instructors said that Knox was always prompt for class, so clearly she was able to know time.

As for left brain ways of calculating time, I'm left handed, therefore right brained, and I calculate time based on other reference points just like anyone else.

Time Of Death. Although what is attempted is to say that AK is innocent and she didn't know about what time Meredith died. But as it really shows- she had an idea of what time she died... and tried to say they ate dinner 'very late' :innocent: . She forgot that she would have eaten before planned-for work... and that RS's dad already had been told they had eaten (maybe she didn't hear this call :waitasec: ) and had a 'spill'.

*I couldn't tell that you were 'wrong-handed' otto :crazy: .

 

[wasnt_me]

Otto,

It is my understanding that there is a jury in this trial as well. Helmann is the leading judge, in the same way that Massei was the leading judge in the first trial.

I believe I have read the name of the second judge (not to be confused with the panel of "lay judges" ) -- I looked briefly to see if I can find more substantial information. The only thing I have found so far is the following from Perugia Shock:

The judge is also on the jury.

 

[Monzoo]

Right, but in terms of suggesting that the prosecution theory has changed because of speculative responses made a couple of years after the trial seems to be quite a stretch ... so in that context ... that the prosecution theory has changed, I disagree on the basis that the theory has not changed at all. The theory is that Knox was at the scene of the crime during the murder, and if the prosecutor has to speculate on what would happen if the knife DNA were to be excluded, then he can also speculate that maybe the self-incriminating statement could be included. It's all speculation, and it doesn't IMO imply that the prosecution theory has changed.

Furthermore, the guilty verdict was not based on the DNA on the knife ... that evidence was but a small piece of the complete evidence. Exclude, the knife, then look at the statements. Exclude the statements, then look at the lack of alibi. Exclude the lies and absence of alibis, then look at the staged break in. Exclude the staged break in, then look at the luminol evidence. It goes on and on ... the three convicted murderers will not suddenly become innocent because one or two pieces of evidence are reviewed during appeal.

The problem is not that they will suddenly become innocent -- they either are or they aren't.

What is excluded or disproven as evidence, however, should have an effect on whether they are convicted.

All of the items on your list of evidence have been argued against in AK and RS's appeals. Since the appeal is still ongoing, we do not know if the judge is going to open up any or all of these areas of evidence. (DNA via the knife and clasp, and alibi via Cuartolo have already been opened up.)

At what point, if these items on your list of evidence are disproven or tossed out, will you consider the correct verdict to be not guilty? You must reach this point eventually unless your opinion is not based on evidence.