Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[otto]

What's central to the theory is that RG was trapped inside a locked door and had to get a key from MK.

I see no persuasive value in adding an extra complication about a missing fifth key. If Hendry did so, I don't remember it, but it must be because he was told such a key was usually in the door.

Who would have told Hendry that there was an imaginery fifth key? I thought he was familiar with the case, the evidence, the trial, the crime scene and was purporting to be an expert with an expert opinion?

It's absolutely impossible to argue that someone that entered the cottage without a key suddenly needed a key to exit the cottage.

 

[mdana]

When Knox was in prison, she told her mother, and it was recorded by investigators, that she had falsely accused Patrick. That was the basis for prosecution putting Edda on the stand and asking her why she didn't come forward and report her daughter's admitted lies.

Huh? You are arguing that the prosecution knew AK falsely accused PL, yet they still held him for two weeks.

The false accusation was not proven or known until after the two week time frame you are demanding that Ms. Mellas come forward, <modsnip>.

 

[dgfred]

He wouldn't have to jump. According to the lonewolf theory, it was a simple task for Guede to scale a 3.5 meter flat wall rather than climb over the balcony (which he had done in a previous break-in). Presumably it would also be a simple task to climb down that wall.

But what if the unlucky lad fell on the way 'in' the window... wouldn't that be bad on ankles too :innocent: ?

I'm kind of glad the lonewolf theory has 'gone to the fishes' since both defense teams brought in inmates to claim 'others' were there that committed the murder, thereby they both know (or it infers) that 'theory' will not fly in court. Kind of kills the no staged break-in theory too IMO... finally.

 

[Nova]

He decided to sexually assault Meredith because she would have heard him climbing out the broken window?

Yet again, not what I said.

We don't know what triggered the sexual assault. We merely know it happened at some point. I think most people assume that in struggling with MK, RG found himself aroused.

That's difficult for me to imagine for several reasons: I'm not turned on by violence, I'm gay, I don't break into people's homes, etc.

But it still makes more sense than the three-way sexual assault by conspirators who didn't all know each other and who didn't share a common language.

 

[Nova]

He wouldn't have to jump. According to the lonewolf theory, it was a simple task for Guede to scale a 3.5 meter flat wall rather than climb over the balcony (which he had done in a previous break-in). Presumably it would also be a simple task to climb down that wall.

See, there's the problem: too much presuming.

Climbing down is often more difficult than climbing up, especially in the dark. Moreover, since the cottage was now occupied, he didn't dare turn on a light.

 

[emyr]

She didn't recant anything in her gift statement. She said that she stood behind her statements regarding Patrick.

" And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik ..."

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

The selectivity of the snip makes it seem much more damaging. Here's the full statement with less damaging snippets:

http://equinox-ecliptic.blogspot.com/2011/02/amanda-knox-gift-to-police-nov-7th-2007.html

However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.

2. I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating. 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.

 

[mdana]

He decided to sexually assault Meredith because she would have heard him climbing out the broken window?

<modsnip>. The coroner retracted a sexual assault finding on the autopsy, no? Was she actually sexually assualted or not, because that seems to have been dropped?

 

[Nova]

I haven't bothered reading the theories of Hendry, Fisher and other Knox groupies, but if the theory requires an imaginery key, and a sexual assault and murder because the lonewolf suddenly forgot how to exit through the window that he entered, then there are some serious problems with the theories.

Now you've resorted to calling people names and misrepresenting what other posters have said.

<self-snipped>

 

[dgfred]

Huh? You are arguing that the prosecution knew AK falsely accused PL, yet they still held him for two weeks.

The false accusation was not proven or known until after the two week time frame you are demanding that Ms. Mellas come forward, <modsnip>.

<modsnip> ILE should have released Patrick... because someone else admitted/accused of being at the murder scene NOW tells her mom that it is her fault Patrick is in jail? His alibi is what it took two weeks to prove, not that the accusation itself was false. How would ILE know which story was true when a now suspect is being forgetful/deceptive/contradictory/evasive/suspicious/confused/etc? Once he was 'accused' they had to check it out, regardless of whether another witness/suspect changed their mind.

 

[dgfred]

The selectivity of the snip makes it seem much more damaging. Here's the full statement with less damaging snippets:

http://equinox-ecliptic.blogspot.com/2011/02/amanda-knox-gift-to-police-nov-7th-2007.html

However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.

2. I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating. 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.

'less' damaging maybe... but damaging none the less. No reasonable person IMO is going to believe that she accused an innocent person because of 2 hours of 'pressure and confusion' AND because she was unsure what was real and what was a dream... or any best truth she can remember. Of course there was pressure in a murder inquiry, and confusion from trying to pry the facts out of the 'dreams'. She still does in fact say 'I STAND BY MY STATEMENTS THAT I MADE LAST NIGHT'.... :innocent:

 

[Nova]

She didn't recant anything in her gift statement. She said that she stood behind her statements regarding Patrick.

" And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik ..."

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

You are being deceptive in characterizing your own citation:

"what happened is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else"

"I have been told there is hard evidence"

"This, I want to confirm, is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible."

"In my mind there are things I remember and things that are confused."

"However, I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure. I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I am not sure about"

"I don't think I did much."

"In truth, I do not remember exactly what day it was, but I do remember that we had a shower"

"In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly."

"it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers."

"But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked."

"But the truth is, I am unsure about the truth and here's why:
1. 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.
2. My boyfriend has claimed that I have said things that I know are not true. "

FULL QUOTE DECEPTIVELY EDITED BY OP:

"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."

"I'm very confused at this time."

"I know I didn't kill Meredith. That's all I know for sure. In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night."

(AK goes on to reiterate that the reason for her confusion is that her interrogators are telling her things that directly contradict her actual memory of events.)

(Emphasis added.)

 

[SMK]

He decided to sexually assault Meredith because she would have heard him climbing out the broken window?

Yes, of course. Robbery can turn into unplanned sexual assault if a female is home. I know this for a fact.

 

[Nova]

Here we will have to part ways again. I think that a math teacher that holds important information about a man falsely accused of murder should be able to figure out a way to get that information to police. Apparently you are willing to overlook the fact that the educated, intelligent math teacher was completely befuddled because she didn't speak Italian, and so she did nothing.

How was she supposed to know PL was falsely accused of murder?

Even if she knew her daughter's statement was coerced, she had no way of knowing what other evidence there was against PL.

As I've shown in my previous post, her own daughter already had told ILE that her statement implicating PL was almost certainly false and yet the police were still holding PL. Why wouldn't Ms. Mellas assume ILE had good reason to do so?

 

[mdana]

Since the jurors/judges made their decisions upon the evidence presented, I don't know what 'guilters' have to do with what the media does or does not do. 'Guilters' nor the media are the reasons AK and RS were convicted IMO.

The media can create an unfair burden for any defense team, hence the reason trials are moved to new locales. I think you have to have your head in the sand to believe the Italian media, spoonfed distortions and outright lies by the prosecution, didn't convict these two before the first trial. Now, one might not believe it any effect on the jury, but I don't share that belief.

To the overall thrust of your deflection, my biggest question is ad hom. or a strawman? Although, a nice mixture in my view, I am going with sm.

Where did I state the guilters had anything to do with what the media does or does not do? The criticism was the hypocrisy of the guilters trumpeting any misleading report or article that supported their bias or side in the past. Now if their position is attacked or weakened and the report or article is favorable to or even just balanced, they cry foul. One cannot profess to be seeking the truth and distort or withold certain information. Nor can one lustily cheer on distortions that present your side in positive fashion.

 

[Nova]

Who would have told Hendry that there was an imaginery fifth key? I thought he was familiar with the case, the evidence, the trial, the crime scene and was purporting to be an expert with an expert opinion?

It's absolutely impossible to argue that someone that entered the cottage without a key suddenly needed a key to exit the cottage.

I don't know that anybody told Hendry any such thing! I merely said that if Hendry says he has evidence of a fifth key, then he does. He has no reason to lie; his theory doesn't depend on a fifth key.

THIS IS YOUR CLAIM and you also claim never to have read Hendry. As far as I know, you invented the fifth key.

***

This gets so tiresome. Per the "lone wolf" theory, PL entered when the cottage was empty, then MK returned home. PL couldn't exit quickly and silently through the front door without a key. PL couldn't go back out a broken window in the dark without making noise.

PL had no way to avoid discovery. Nobody is claiming that he was literally, physically trapped inside a cottage with windows.

 

[Nova]

But what if the unlucky lad fell on the way 'in' the window... wouldn't that be bad on ankles too :innocent: ?

I'm kind of glad the lonewolf theory has 'gone to the fishes' since both defense teams brought in inmates to claim 'others' were there that committed the murder, thereby they both know (or it infers) that 'theory' will not fly in court. Kind of kills the no staged break-in theory too IMO... finally.

Ah, but RG denied the claims of the new witnesses.

If you believe RG, then the "lone wolf" theory is just as credible as before.

 

[otto]

Huh? You are arguing that the prosecution knew AK falsely accused PL, yet they still held him for two weeks.

The false accusation was not proven or known until after the two week time frame you are demanding that Ms. Mellas come forward, so again you destroy your own credibility.

I destroy my credibility? What exactly does that mean? Please review the terms of service: personal, derogatory remarks towards other posters are not welcome on this forum.

Knox and her mother were recorded discussing Knox falsely accusing an innocent man of murder. Police could not act directly on that taped information as the information was not given directly to them. They accepted, reviewed and sought independent evidence to clear Patrick. That investigation required two weeks, and on the basis of independent evidence Patrick was released from prison.

 

[mdana]

He wouldn't have to jump. According to the lonewolf theory, it was a simple task for Guede to scale a 3.5 meter flat wall rather than climb over the balcony (which he had done in a previous break-in). Presumably it would also be a simple task to climb down that wall.

No it is not. Have you ever climbed a wall? I have climbed numerous walls, and typically there is a point you have to jump up 1-2 feet to get to a window, landing, porch, balcony, roof, etc. When you come back down it may be virtually if not actually impossible to replicate it on the way down. If you are on a 5 inch ledge and you jump up to be 7 ft above that ledge, good luck landing on that ledge without smacking into the wall on the way down. Now you have to drop 10-15 feet down.

RG had to catch the window below him which was approx. 5 ft. below the window. Not sure how he does that in daylight let alone darkness. He has to drop the 11.5 feet.

 

[otto]

But what if the unlucky lad fell on the way 'in' the window... wouldn't that be bad on ankles too :innocent: ?

I'm kind of glad the lonewolf theory has 'gone to the fishes' since both defense teams brought in inmates to claim 'others' were there that committed the murder, thereby they both know (or it infers) that 'theory' will not fly in court. Kind of kills the no staged break-in theory too IMO... finally.

Absolutely. It should be abundantly clear to all that the defense has embraced the fact that Guede did not act alone.'

Guede could have fallen climbing in the window or out the window or maybe no one climbed through the window at all ... since the broken glass from the window was on the outside window ledge but not a single shard of glass on the ground below. Anyone climbing in the window would have brushed the glass off the ledge to avoid being cut while climbing in the window, or would have been cut at least once with all that broken glass everywhere ... still, no evidence that anyone was cut by the glass except for Knox. We have one piece of glass in Filomina's room with a mixture of Knox and Meredith DNA.

 

[mdana]

So in your view ILE should have released Patrick... because someone else admitted/accused of being at the murder scene NOW tells her mom that it is her fault Patrick is in jail? His alibi is what it took two weeks to prove, not that the accusation itself was false. How would ILE know which story was true when a now suspect is being forgetful/deceptive/contradictory/evasive/suspicious/confused/etc? Once he was 'accused' they had to check it out, regardless of whether another witness/suspect changed their mind.

The previous arguement was Ms. Mellas should have come forward in that two week time frame. Then he used a much longer time frame when many more facts were known to buttress his contention. That is inconsistent.

That is not my contention.