Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #13

[Nova]

What do you mean? The trial was over a couple of years ago. Of course he successfully argued the case ... the verdicts were guilty for all three murderers.

And yet Mignini is still changing his theory of the crime. That should concern all of us.

 

[Nova]

So you want me to prove my opinion that thrill kills are motiveless murders? ??

I don't understand your remark.

in a THRILL kill, the thrill is the motive.

 

[OldSteve]

@ OTTO: Here is where I had read the info on Knox's appeal having a new panel, Judge, and JURY:

TIME Magazine: Amanda Knox's Appeal: A Friendlier Venue This Time?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2036395,00.html#ixzz1OEusqile

Great! Thanks for this!

 

[Nova]

The three convicted murderers do not have an alibi that can be independently verified or corroborated by anyone one or any activity - including electronic activity. Two of the convicted persons claimed they were eating dinner at the time of the murder (giving three different times), but that was proven to be a lie ... thus making their dinner hour very significant in terms of revealing lies and leaving them without an alibi.

How do you know they lied about the time they ate? How do you know they weren't simply mistaken?

It is now Friday morning. I can't tell you the time I ate dinner on Tuesday night. Nor do I have an alibi for that evening other than the people with whom I live. (I happen to live with two--my husband and my stepson--so I have an advantage there.) My computer might suggest a time, unless ILE got a hold of it and fried the hard drive!

So much of the evidence against AK and RS is like this: repeated over and over by the prosecution and internet posters until what is perfectly normal seems unusual.

What time did Filomena have dinner? What is her alibi other than that she was with her boyfriend?

I will wager you don't know. You're simply willing to take ILE's word that Filomena has been cleared.

I have no reason to believe Filomena is guilty of anything, but ILE's say-so doesn't mean much to me.

 

[Nova]

Check out the poll updates ... did she or didn't she?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129425&page=3&highlight=Kercher

I suppose many people are relieved that none of the convicted parties in the Meredith Kercher murder trial are referred to as inmates ... like in the "Inmate Casey Anthony" (ICA) trial. If she had murdered her roommate in the US, would she be referred to as Inmate Amanda Knox", or is the term "inmate" only used in connection with filicide trials?

In a way, itentifying the guilty party as "Inmate Amanda Knox" (IAK) does help separate her from the victim, Meredith Kercher. Meredith Kercher was a star in a music video. She walks down the stairs and snow flakes are falling. She appears to be a quiet, thoughtful person in the video. She would never be an inmate. If her roommate turned up dead - I don't for a minute believe that she would forget, be mistaken about, or blatantly lie about the events of the previous evening. I highly doubt that she would have lied about stopping her ears while her roommate's boss murdered her roommate in the bedroom down the hall ... after two hours of questioning. I have no reason to believe this other than knowing that normal, innocent people can remember that they were going to work the night before, what time they were going to work, that they ate dinner before going to work, that they remember phone calls cancelling work and they remember where they were when that phone call occurred. Amanda had trouble with all of this.

BBM: the phrase that sums up this post.

As you probably know perfectly well, the "I" is added to "ICA" because every female in the family has the same initials. AK can be distinguished from MK by the first initial.

 

[SMK]

Great! Thanks for this!

Most welcome!

 

[dgfred]

How do you know they lied about the time they ate? How do you know they weren't simply mistaken?

It is now Friday morning. I can't tell you the time I ate dinner on Tuesday night. Nor do I have an alibi for that evening other than the people with whom I live. (I happen to live with two--my husband and my stepson--so I have an advantage there.) My computer might suggest a time, unless ILE got a hold of it and fried the hard drive!

So much of the evidence against AK and RS is like this: repeated over and over by the prosecution and internet posters until what is perfectly normal seems unusual.

What time did Filomena have dinner? What is her alibi other than that she was with her boyfriend?

I will wager you don't know. You're simply willing to take ILE's word that Filomena has been cleared.

I have no reason to believe Filomena is guilty of anything, but ILE's say-so doesn't mean much to me.

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.

Filomena did not/was not:

Found at the crime scene
Lying about her whereabouts that night
Accuse an innocent man
Change her alibi
Her blood drops and dna was not mixed with the murder victims
Her bloody BARE footprints were not found by luminol
Her dna was not on the knife along with Meredith's
Laugh, snuggle and kiss her boyfriend in the police station
Her friends did NOT say she was acting suspicious, but somebody was :innocent:

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

 

[SMK]

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.

Filomena did not/was not:

1. Found at the crime scene
2. Lying about her whereabouts that night
3. Accuse an innocent man
4. Change her alibi
5. Her blood drops and dna was not mixed with the murder victims
6. Her bloody BARE footprints were not found by luminol
7. Her dna was not on the knife along with Meredith's
8. Laugh, snuggle and kiss her boyfriend in the police station
9. Her friends did NOT say she was acting suspicious, but somebody was :innocent:

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

Just to be reasonable and play devil's advocate: :innocent:
1. Natural enough to come home to get her clothes.
2., 3., 4. : Filomina not pressed and harassed to this point: No suspicion ever cast on her claims. When she said she did not know Guede, nor did Meredith - even though Guede was part of the boys downstairs and knew MK's boyfriend, and smoked pot with them all - it was instantly believed. Not so with Knox.
5., 6., 7. have low copy number and a whole lot of question marks. Despite what is said by the opposing camp.
8. and 9.: Just irrelevant. Meaningless.

 

[otto]

@ OTTO: Here is where I had read the info on Knox's appeal having a new panel, Judge, and JURY:

TIME Magazine: Amanda Knox's Appeal: A Friendlier Venue This Time?





http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2036395,00.html#ixzz1OEusqile

Thank you for finding that!

 

[otto]

And yet Mignini is still changing his theory of the crime. That should concern all of us.

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?

 

[otto]

in a THRILL kill, the thrill is the motive.

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

 

[otto]

How do you know they lied about the time they ate? How do you know they weren't simply mistaken?

It is now Friday morning. I can't tell you the time I ate dinner on Tuesday night. Nor do I have an alibi for that evening other than the people with whom I live. (I happen to live with two--my husband and my stepson--so I have an advantage there.) My computer might suggest a time, unless ILE got a hold of it and fried the hard drive!

So much of the evidence against AK and RS is like this: repeated over and over by the prosecution and internet posters until what is perfectly normal seems unusual.

What time did Filomena have dinner? What is her alibi other than that she was with her boyfriend?

I will wager you don't know. You're simply willing to take ILE's word that Filomena has been cleared.

I have no reason to believe Filomena is guilty of anything, but ILE's say-so doesn't mean much to me.

I know they lied about the dinner hour because that is part of the evidence. Are you suggesting that Knox knew she had to work at a specific time, knew that she ate before she had to work, and then the next day couldn't remember that she had to work and that she ate before she had to go to work? That's rather farfetched!

 

[SkewedView]

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?

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.

 

[otto]

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.

Thanks. I remember someone posting earlier that the trial prosecutors are consultants or resource persons for the current appeal. That makes complete sense ... particularly if someone wants to locate certain testimony, et cetera.

 

[SkewedView]

Thanks. I remember someone posting earlier that the trial prosecutors are consultants or resource persons for the current appeal. That makes complete sense ... particularly if someone wants to locate certain testimony, et cetera.

Yeah, I would assume that at the very least he would have had to give the current prosecutor a full briefing and access to all of his office's relevant files/materials. SOP as far as I know.

Still bad PR because of his own ongoing trial - nobody ever said that PR made logical sense, lol. :crazy:

 

[otto]

Yeah, I would assume that at the very least he would have had to give the current prosecutor a full briefing and access to all of his office's relevant files/materials. SOP as far as I know.

Still bad PR because of his own ongoing trial - nobody ever said that PR made logical sense, lol. :crazy:

I think that when any prosecutor hands a file off, they remain on as a resource person until the recipient of the file is up to speed. It seems he would almost be remiss if he did not offer to assist if required.

 

[SkewedView]

I think that when any prosecutor hands a file off, they remain on as a resource person until the recipient of the file is up to speed. It seems he would almost be remiss if he did not offer to assist if required.

To be honest, in his shoes, I would have recused myself from direct involvement and simply had the assistant prosecutor (can't remember her name off the top of my head) handle all of it. As a public official, image means a lot more than you would think.

Mind you, I'm not saying he's done anything wrong here, just that it provides fodder to the peanut gallery that he really doesn't need at this point.

 

[dgfred]

I know they lied about the dinner hour because that is part of the evidence. Are you suggesting that Knox knew she had to work at a specific time, knew that she ate before she had to work, and then the next day couldn't remember that she had to work and that she ate before she had to go to work? That's rather farfetched!

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

 

[SkewedView]

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

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.

 

[dgfred]

Just to be reasonable and play devil's advocate: :innocent:
1. Natural enough to come home to get her clothes.
2., 3., 4. : Filomina not pressed and harassed to this point: No suspicion ever cast on her claims. When she said she did not know Guede, nor did Meredith - even though Guede was part of the boys downstairs and knew MK's boyfriend, and smoked pot with them all - it was instantly believed. Not so with Knox.
5., 6., 7. have low copy number and a whole lot of question marks. Despite what is said by the opposing camp.
8. and 9.: Just irrelevant. Meaningless.

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.