Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[SMK]

When Scott Peterson was suspected of murdering his wife, his family protested his innocence ... we see the same thing from the families of Knox and Sollecito. With Peterson, there were websites that completely supported him and many people that believed he was innocent. Fast forward about 10 years and we have the same situation, but with much better developed social media.

Knox/Mellas not only used social media to influence people into believing that Knox was innocent, but they hired a PR firm to portray Knox as a innocent in US news. As the evidence was presented in court, some people had difficulty believing that she was innocent, while others looked at each piece of evidence and tried to find ways to explain it. For example, it's "Amanda the Amelie", she didn't lie about the time of dinner - she was confused and maybe she ate dinner three times that evening, she has an alibi - she was at Raffaeles, Raffaele has an alibi - he was on the computer even though there is no electronic record, she didn't really accuse an innocent man of murder - the police made her do it by depriving her of food and drink for 2 hours and bopping her on the head, and so on.

I'm pretty sure that Ms Anthony is guilty of murdering her daughter, but the jury thinks she didn't do it. Some people think Knox didn't murder Meredith, but the jury thinks she did.

Well, the parts I have bolded, along with a few other points, seem valid to me. There WAS activity on the computer up to 9:20; false confessions are legion, especially in the young and naiive; etc. If all these questions had not arisen, I would not mind believing the 2 were guilty. Guede really undermines it all, for me, as well. I believe Casey Anthony was culpable of something, but I am not losing any sleep over the verdict.

 

[otto]

Well, the parts I have bolded, along with a fewer other points, seem valid to me. There WAS activity on the computer up to 9:20; false confessions are legion, especially in the young and naiive; etc. If all these questions had not arisen, I would not mind believing the 2 were guilty. Guede really undermines it all, for me, as well. I believe Casey Anthony was culpable of something, but I am not losing any sleep over the verdict.

I believe that, according to the Motivation Summary, the time is 9:10 (ref: pg 302) and it is stated that this time corresponds to a movie ending and not any human interaction with the computer. That is, there are no keystrokes recorded at that time.

Actually, what happened is that Knox, of sound mind, falsely accused an innocent person of murder (not confessed to a crime) after two hours. This really has nothing to do with "false confessions".

 

[emyr]

I don't think we know how much DNA should be found at a crime scene.

But weren't their multiple, copious amounts of Rudy's DNA at the crime scene? Why would there be so many hits of Rudy and only one of Sollecito and none of Amanda?

 

[otto]

But weren't their multiple, copious amounts of Rudy's DNA at the crime scene? Why would there be so many hits of Rudy and only one of Sollecito and none of Amanda?

I don't know how it can be said that there was copious amounts of Guede's DNA at the crime scene. As far as I know, Guede opted for a fast track trial where he admitted being at the scene. I don't think that the court heard about evidence proving that he was there, only about evidence proving that there was sexual contact between Guede and Meredith, and that he used the toilet. Since the collection of DNA and lab analysis of DNA is in question, I think that would also put into question whether Guede's DNA really was on Meredith or in the toilet.

My understanding is that there were not multiple hits of Guede's DNA, but if you are aware of any DNA from Guede other than the toilet and what was used to prove sexual contact, I'm interested in hearing about it. His arrest was based on fingerprint identification.

Regarding DNA from Knox ... I think the answer is obvious. Her DNA is probably all over the crime scene because she lived there. The crime scene is the cottage, not a bedroom, as there is blood and other evidence related to the murder throughout the cottage. We also have the strange situation where Knox's lamp was in Meredith's bedroom but there was no DNA from Knox on the lamp. That's odd. If there is indeed no Knox DNA at the crime scene, even though she lived there, that's even more odd.

Regarding DNA from Sollecito, I believe there was a mixed Knox/Sollecito DNA sample on a cigarette butt, and then we have his DNA on Meredith's underwear. There may well have been more DNA from Sollecito at the scene, but only evidence that could be dated, like the cigarette and the underwear, would have been tested.

 

[emyr]

I believe that, according to the Motivation Summary, the time is 9:10 (ref: pg 302) and it is stated that this time corresponds to a movie ending and not any human interaction with the computer. That is, there are no keystrokes recorded at that time.

Actually, what happened is that Knox, of sound mind, falsely accused an innocent person of murder (not confessed to a crime) after two hours. This really has nothing to do with "false confessions".

Yes, I suppose it falls under false accusations doesn't it?

Do we all agree on the fact that:

1) Amanda Knox was questioned at various times on November 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th, and the early morning of November 6th.

2) Amanda's story was 90% unchanged on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th. She said she was at Sollecito's, that she ate, had sex, watched movies, read Harry Potter. The times of these events fluctuated.

3) In the a.m. hours of the 6th. she was told that Sollecito had said she was not at his apartment that night. After several hours (two? four?) of questioning her story changed, and she accused Lumamba.

4) Several hours (five?) after this, still on the 6th, she wrote a written statement saying that she stood by her new story, but at the same time this new story felt like a dream to her, and her previous story seemed more real.

5) She was formally arrested after this statement.

6) Lumamba was arrested.

7) After an unknown amount of time (weeks? a month?) her next statements reverted back to her original story. She declared Lumamba to be innocent. The main things that continued to change from this point forward are the exact times and sequence of events, though not the events themselves (stayed at Sollecito's, ate, watched movie, had sex).

 

[otto]

Yes, I suppose it falls under false accusations doesn't it?

Do we all agree on the fact that:

1) Amanda Knox was questioned at various times on November 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th, and the early morning of November 6th.

2) Amanda's story was 90% unchanged on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th. She said she was at Sollecito's, that she ate, had sex, watched movies, read Harry Potter. The times of these events fluctuated.

3) In the a.m. hours of the 6th. she was told that Sollecito had said she was not at his apartment that night. After several hours (two? four?) of questioning her story changed, and she accused Lumamba.

4) Several hours (five?) after this, still on the 6th, she wrote a written statement saying that she stood by her new story, but at the same time this new story felt like a dream to her, and her previous story seemed more real.

5) She was formally arrested after this statement.

6) Lumamba was arrested.

7) After an unknown amount of time (weeks? a month?) her next statements reverted back to her original story. She declared Lumamba to be innocent. The main things that continued to change from this point forward are the exact times and sequence of events, though not the events themselves (stayed at Sollecito's, ate, watched movie, had sex).

Not really ...

Knox, and many other witnesses, were questioned in the days leading up to the day that Knox falsely accused an innocent man of murder.

Knox provided an alibi that could not be independently verified. That is, although she claimed that she was at Sollecito's apartment watching a movie, eating dinner, listening to music, having a shower and sleeping, it was proven untrue. That is, dinner was not at 10 or 11 as Knox claimed, but at 8:20 or 8:30. The movie concluded at 9:10 and there was no human interaction with the computer until the following morning at about 6 AM, when the computer was used for music. I don't believe they sat in silence from 9:10 until the following morning.

After two hours of questioning as a witness, at a time when Knox was not expected to be at the police station, she falsely accused an innocent man of murder. No one knows what was said during that interview except what was written in the statement that Knox signed at 1:45 in the morning. At this time, her status was changed from witness to suspect and she was detained.

At about 5:45, after demanding to be heard, she again signed a statement confirming her earlier statement. Neither this statement, nor the one signed at 1:45, were used against her in court ... they were inadmissable.

Later, while alone in a cell, she asked for paper/pen and reiterated that she stood behind her statements about Patrick. I don't remember the date of this voluntary statement that she described for police as a "gift". For some reason, Nov 9 comes to mind.

Knox did not declare that Patrick was innocent. In fact, she remained silent regarding his innocence.

Regardless of her changing alibi, the events that she claims occurred at Sollecito's apartment between 9 PM and 10 AM (when she said they woke up) did not happen.

 

[SMK]

Not really ...

Knox, and many other witnesses, were questioned in the days leading up to the day that Knox falsely accused an innocent man of murder.

Knox provided an alibi that could not be independently verified. That is, although she claimed that she was at Sollecito's apartment watching a movie, eating dinner, listening to music, having a shower and sleeping, it was proven untrue. That is, dinner was not at 10 or 11 as Knox claimed, but at 8:20 or 8:30. The movie concluded at 9:10 and there was no human interaction with the computer until the following morning at about 6 AM, when the computer was used for music. I don't believe they sat in silence from 9:10 until the following morning.

After two hours of questioning as a witness, at a time when Knox was not expected to be at the police station, she falsely accused an innocent man of murder. No one knows what was said during that interview except what was written in the statement that Knox signed at 1:45 in the morning. At this time, her status was changed from witness to suspect and she was detained.

At about 5:45, after demanding to be heard, she again signed a statement confirming her earlier statement. Neither this statement, nor the one signed at 1:45, were used against her in court ... they were inadmissable.

Later, while alone in a cell, she asked for paper/pen and reiterated that she stood behind her statements about Patrick. I don't remember the date of this voluntary statement that she described for police as a "gift". For some reason, Nov 9 comes to mind.

Knox did not declare that Patrick was innocent. In fact, she remained silent regarding his innocence.

Regardless of her changing alibi, the events that she claims occurred at Sollecito's apartment between 9 PM and 10 AM (when she said they woke up) did not happen.

When did she say that the statement about PL seemed "less real" to her than being at Raffale's apartment, and that if what she had told was valid, "then I am confused, and my dreams are real". She would likely have been having nightmares after Meredith was murdered, and it is obvious she had dreamt of PL there.

 

[otto]

When did she say that the statement about PL seemed "less real" to her than being at Raffale's apartment, and that if what she had told was valid, "then I am confused, and my dreams are real". She would likely have been having nightmares after Meredith was murdered, and it is obvious she had dreamt of PL there.

I have no idea when Knox wrote about imagining things, but she was questioned about imagining things during the trial. Confusing reality with dreams is usually associated with some form of mental illness - don't recall anything about Knox having a mental illness.

 

[SMK]

I have no idea when Knox wrote about imagining things, but she was questioned about imagining things during the trial. Confusing reality with dreams is usually associated with some form of mental illness - don't recall anything about Knox having a mental illness.

I will have to look it up, but she did write, "If what they are saying about me being there is the truth, then I am confused, and my dreams are real". One does not have to be mentally ill to be in grief or shock. Freud tells the story of the man who dreamt his dead son came to him from the casket, and rebuked him, and the man who was otherwise sane believed this had occurred. Knox would have been having nightmares, and very likely dreamt she was at the cottage, and that Patrick was there. She repeatedly said that the vision of her at the cottage and PL seemed "like a dream" and that being with Raff at his apartment seemed "as real as my being here". In her sleepless anxiety compounded by grief, she may have confused a dream with reality. In fact, I believe she did, and ILE took advantage of this and swept to their revenge. This is NOT a straight-forward accusation of PL.

 

[otto]

I will have to look it up, but she did write, "If what they are saying about me being there is the truth, then I am confused, and my dreams are real". One does not have to be mentally ill to be in grief or shock. Freud tells the story of the man who dreamt his dead son came to him from the casket, and rebuked him, and the man who was otherwise sane believed this had occurred. Knox would have been having nightmares, and very likely dreamt she was at the cottage, and that Patrick was there. She repeatedly said that the vision of her at the cottage and PL seemed "like a dream" and that being with Raff at his apartment seemed "as real as my being here". In her sleepless anxiety compounded by grief, she may have confused a dream with reality. In fact, I believe she did, and ILE took advantage of this and swept to their revenge. This is NOT a straight-forward accusation of PL.

It's really stretching it to suggest that Knox was in grief or shock. She did not at any time express any condolences to the victim's family, and the only memorable thing she said after the murder was "she f-ing bled to death". During the investigation, she was described as flirting with her boyfriend and performing acrobatics. During the memorial, she was eating pizza elsewhere.

If you ask me, it sounds like you're coming up with yet another excuse to remove responsibility from Knox for the actions, words and deeds that resulted in her conviction.

Let's not forget that nothing about the murder scene caused her any concern ... she simply wandered off, carrying a mop, to have brunch with her boyfriend.

 

[SMK]

It's really stretching it to suggest that Knox was in grief or shock. She did not at any time express any condolences to the victim's family, and the only memorable thing she said after the murder was "she f-ing bled to death". During the investigation, she was described as flirting with her boyfriend and performing acrobatics. During the memorial, she was eating pizza elsewhere.

If you ask me, it sounds like you're coming up with yet another excuse to remove responsibility from Knox for the actions, words and deeds that resulted in her conviction.

Grief and shock, perhaps, for what had nearly befallen her. She may have been thinking that she could well have wound up in MK's position. If she was involved, why did she flirt, do acrobatics, eat pizza? ( though god knows, to be eating a week later is scarcely a crime - I ate normally the day my husband died, even though I was fully aware that the important part of my life had ended abruptly). Why did she not pull out her "Amanda the actress" persona, and wail and cry and wear black and grieve openly? Because she did not believe she was in danger of being misinterpreted, not having been there when the crime occurred. PS: :razz:

 

[otto]

I think Otto thinks there needs to be two different labs because of the go-around we were having about testing LNC DNA. Someone was saying that, in a busy working lab, asking to do control tests, and cleaning the machines, as well as the other minutae that is required to test LNC DNA is too much to ask for. My response was that if this is the case, then you would send off the evidence to be tested in a lab where those protocols where followed. Stefanoni had two options: 1) To perform safety protocols to ensure that her test of LNC DNA wad done accurately. 2) If this was too much to expect from her busy lab, then she could send it to another lab where no such concern would exist (no Meredith DNA in the machines).

I don't believe the experts said that was a requirement. What they did say was that there are many different methods of verifying if the machines were contaminated prior to testing LNC DNA, and none of these were done.

Yes, my remark was based on one of the criticisms in the report. The exerts said that with LNC DNA, it should be tested in a different lab than one where other related DNA was tested because there could be trace DNA, such as LNC DNA left on the machines.

 

[SMK]

I found this quote of Amanda's, on a site, by the way, which is claiming that her words indicate concealment and deception:

The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real. [. . . ]
And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.

Just for your interest, Otto, the analyst makes these claims (which I am not in agreement with):

The same theme continues. I have highlighted the key words as the explanation is the same. Knox can't tell the truth, as it would cause her consequences; therefore, she seeks to confuse and leave open all sorts of possible explanations. She does not report what happens, but attempts to persuade. This is likely how she got herself out of trouble growing up, and is used to getting her way. The wording suggests her form of lying is lifelong, and not specific to this event.

Amanda Knox would not pass a polygraph. She fails the polygraphy of Statement Analysis and places herself at the scene of the murder and is deceptive throughout her account.

In her account not only does she show ownership of the crime, but places herself at the crime scene and links sexual activity with the crime itself.

She is consistently deceptive in her statement.

 

[otto]

Grief and shock, perhaps, for what had nearly befallen her. She may have been thinking that she could well have wound up in MK's position. If she was involved, why did she flirt, do acrobatics, eat pizza? ( though god knows, to be eating a week later is scarcely a crime - I ate normally the day my husband died, even though I was fully aware that the important part of my life had ended abruptly). Why did she not pull out her "Amanda the actress" persona, and wail and cry and wear black and grieve openly? Because she did not believe she was in danger of being misinterpreted, not having been there when the crime occurred. PS: :razz:

There is no logical explanation for Knox accusing an innocent man of murder, and voluntarily standing behind what she said about Patrick. There is no evidence that she was grieving. Personally, I think that anyone dropping the f-bomb immediately after someone is brutally murdered is expressing the antithesis of grief ... but maybe that's how Knox grieves - a la Scott Peterson and Casey Anthony.

 

[otto]

I found this quote of Amanda's, on a site, by the way, which is claiming that her words indicate concealment and deception:



Just for your interest, Otto, the analyst makes these claims (which I am not in agreement with):

This link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

Sounds like Knox and Anthony have obfuscation in common.

 

[SMK]

This link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

Sounds like Knox and Anthony have obfuscation in common.

So you are saying Amanda Knox and Casey Anthony are of the same type. What links them, in your mind? Narcissism?

 

[otto]

So you are saying Amanda Knox and Casey Anthony are of the same type. What links them, in your mind? Narcissism?

I don't think they are the same, but if the armchair analysis of Knox; whom I don't think was evaluated by mental health experts, is correct, then we have two women accused of murder who both use an awful lot of words to say absolutely nothing.

Its like: I think, but in my imaginings, I may remember, but maybe it was a dream, but in my dream, which weren't my imaginings, I imagined that I was dreaming and that's why my grief is so big that I tell whopper lies ... or something like that.

 

[otto]

I did come across this at the PMF site that is often linked:


Casey Anthony:
“They are blaming me for stuff that I never would do, that I didn’t do. You know I wouldn’t let anything happen to my daughter. “

Amanda Knox:
“I want to stress the fact that I’m innocent. Meredith was my friend and I could never have hurt her.”

-------------------------------------------------

Casey Anthony:
“I’m trying to help them [the police], and they are not letting me help them.”

Amanda Knox:
“After the discovery of Meredith, I had spent days in … cooperating with the police to try to just give as much information as I could.”

Curt Knox:
''When this happened, we asked her if she wanted to come home but she said she wanted to stay and help the police catch the person responsible for this terrible crime.”

--------------------------------------------------

Casey Anthony:
“They are twisting stuff. They’ve already said they will pin it on me if they don’t find Caylee.”

Amanda Knox:
“They told me that I was lying. They threatened that I was going to go in prison for 30 years because I was hiding something.”

Curt Knox:
"She was trying to help police and they literally turned it on her."

---------------------------------------------------

Casey Anthony:
“Because nobody is listening to anything I’m saying.”

Amanda Knox:
“I felt like no one was listening to me anymore.”

------------------------------------------------------

Casey Anthony:
“The media completely misconstrued everything that I said.”

Curt Knox:
''There has been so much media exposure and a lot of it has painted an inaccurate picture.”

Curt and Edda say much of what's been reported simply isn't true. Mr Knox also blamed the media for portraying his daughter as a ''dark angel''.

 

[otto]

Two poor little victims, like peas in a pod.

 

[SMK]

Two poor little victims, like peas in a pod.

Yes, it is possible, at least, that both Knox and Anthony were raised in a way which turned them into selfish little liars and narcissists. The PMF quotes are striking in their similarity.

But for some reason I find myself wondering if Knox might really have been misinterpreted. I wish I could see some real proof that she was involved. With Casey Antony, it is easy to infer guilt. With Knox, I have doubts. And those doubts are unsettling. Or is that the PR machine at work?