Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[otto]

Can't you see the fallacy in your own argument as written above?

AK can't account for how her blood got into the sink, so she doesn't know how (OR WHEN) it got there. Hence, her testimony that it wasn't there the day before means nothing except she didn't notice it the day before.

You'd make a better case if you argued the drying times of blood drops.

Don't tell me she was lying under oath when she said that her blood was not in the sink the day before the murder! Not Knox ... our little liar ... was she lying again???

 

[SMK]

It doesn't look like anyone is taking this latest attempt by Knox and Sollecito to get out of jail seriously: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/06/18/italy.knox/index.html

:razz:

 

[otto]

:razz:

Take any trial and, during appeal, parade 5 jailed convicts through the courtroom as proof of innocence, but have all of them tell conflicting stories ... who is going to take it seriously! I think it will be very difficult to argue that the pair didn't have every opportunity to present a defense.

 

[SMK]

Take any trial and, during appeal, parade 5 jailed convicts through the courtroom as proof of innocence, but have all of them tell conflicting stories ... who is going to take it seriously! I think it will be very difficult to argue that the pair didn't have every opportunity to present a defense.

Whose bright idea was it???????????:furious::razz:

 

[otto]

Yes, I have always thought it was bizarre the way that Guede got such a light sentence but : 1. It had to do with his "fast track trial" cutting down to a third and 2. It was claimed (falsely, I believe) that Knox was the throat slasher. (very silly). In any case, Perugia Murder File is claiming today was "a disastrous day for the Defense" and hooting over the silence of Bruce Fisher et al, and this DOES give me a measure of hope. They are TOO cocky, too confident, and pride goeth before a fall.....

Even CNN doesn't seem to have much faith in the testimony presented by th defense today.

 

[otto]

Whose bright idea was it???????????:furious::razz:

Desperate times call for desperate measures - although this is looking altogether too desperate.

 

[SMK]

Even CNN doesn't seem to have much faith in the testimony presented by th defense today.

:tears::tears::tears:

 

[SMK]

Desperate times call for desperate measures - although this is looking altogether too desperate.

Well, one of the articles stated that the Judge wants to hear from Mr. Guede. Mayhap this was a set up to get Rudy on the stand???

 

[otto]

Today in court with the latest defense witnesses: http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/20...i_testimonia_al_processo_meredith-17883632/1/

 

[otto]

Capture from above link:

 

[SMK]

Alessi is very handsome. Looks like a Professor of English and classical Latin I once knew....

 

[SMK]

Capture from above link:

:razz::razz::razz: Not so fast! Guede will be called. :snooty:

 

[otto]

:razz::razz::razz: Not so fast! Guede will be called. :snooty:

I think the eye witness testimony from the homeless guy is looking better all the time - especially with this string of testimony from convicted killers.

Guede has been called to testify before. Other than saying Knox and Sollecito were there, he hasn't been forthcoming. Furthermore, he has already said that he did not say the things the convicts are claiming he said.

 

[wasnt_me]

From the way the "misunderstanding" is described, I've always assumed the text was written in Italian. Is that true?

(I've always wondered why "see you later" means "we have a definite appointment today" in Italian, while "hasta luego" (until later) and "hasta la vista" (until we meet again) in Spanish have the same ambiguous meanings they have in English. But I do understand that slang has its own, often invisible, rules.)

Yeah, there were some people debating that in this other board I read, and they were talking about if you look at what italians write for see you later back before this incident, you'll see that it's normal to say it how she did in the text.

I didn't go back to 2007 and pull it up. I just took their word for it. It just means something to me that PL didn't reply to her, asking her what she meant. We know that he didn't meet her or intend to meet her, so if she'd said it to him, I feel he would have corrected her, so she wouldn't show up at work. I mean that was the purpose of the texting, so she wouldn't show up at work. So if she said "Okay, see you later, good night." and he took that to mean she didn't understand him, he would have texted back, "No, I'm saying DO NOT come to work."

Know what i mean?

 

[SMK]

Can Prison Gossip Free Knox?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/18/amanda-knox-appeal-can-prison-gossip-free-her.html

 

[otto]

Regarding the Italian press demonizing Knox ...

"The trial has captured the attention of Italy, as well as Britain and the US, with photographs of Miss Knox appearing on magazine covers and in countless newspaper stories. The Italian press have dubbed her 'Angel Face' for her good looks and fresh complexion."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ial-for-Meredith-Kercher-murder-in-Italy.html

 

[wasnt_me]

Yes, I have always thought it was bizarre the way that Guede got such a light sentence but : 1. It had to do with his "fast track trial" cutting down to a third and 2. It was claimed (falsely, I believe) that Knox was the throat slasher. (very silly). In any case, Perugia Murder File is claiming today was "a disastrous day for the Defense" and hooting over the silence of Bruce Fisher et al, and this DOES give me a measure of hope. They are TOO cocky, too confident, and pride goeth before a fall.....

I don't see the disaster. I'd think this scenerio given by the prisoners perfectly fit into the scenerio dreamed up by the prosecution. So I don't see what's wrong. You can interchange AK and RS with this accomplice just as easily as you can interchange PL with RG.

Two men can do the job just as well as two men and a woman, and Mig has already theorized that AK might not even have been in the room. So, these witnesses are telling that exact story. two men, and AK wasn't in the room. They are telling the same story about the prosecution's initial theory, sex orgy gone wrong. So what's so funny about the defense today?

Now, when that mobster brother testifies, I would not blame the guilters at all, because I can't buy that story UNLESS RG was the accomplice and the mobster's brother is the guy RG keeps referring to. But as I understand it, this guy is trying to say RG wasn't involved either. That's going to blow it all to hell, because RG NEVER described seeing two guys there trying to get with MK while he was in the bathroom. If he's indeed innocent as the Mobter brother says, then RG would have said he saw the two of them.

 

[wasnt_me]

But the difference is that no DNA of AK or RS was found in MK's room. There was plenty of unidentified DNA found.

So if there are new suspects, they have to be checked against the unidentified DNA before we exclude them as we exclude AK and RS.

Right. I know there's supposed to be 3-4 more unidentified DNA strands on the bra clasp.

Then there's the semen/substance.

What else?

 

[wasnt_me]

If I understand you correctly, the issue in the U.S. isn't whether "you were there," but whether you participated in some ongoing felony that ties you to the murder.

I.e., if a convenience store robbery ends with the owner being shot and killed by a robber, you are not guilty just for being in the store (even if you had a chance to intervene and did not); however, you ARE guilty of murder if you were helping with the robbery (even if you are only driving the getaway car parked half-a-mile away).

In the U.S., if RG and his friend broke into the cottage, they would both be guilty of MK's murder even if only one of them wielded the knife.

If this distinction doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll send you a PM with (I hope) a clearer explanation.

This is as I understand it, and what I was trying to say, but thanks for saying it more logically. :great:

In Italy, though, it seems to not be like that. Am I right? They seem to want to judge varying degrees of participation.

 

[wasnt_me]

Actually, we only know that she did not notice any blood there the day before. You keep confusing eyewitness testimony with scientifically proven fact.

This is exactly right. And I do not understand how any person that believes that AK is a liar, will sit up there and believe her about when she noticed some blood.

That's cherry-picking.