Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[otto]

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.

If we are to presume that Edda was befuddled because she didn't speak Italian, and Knox was seriously prone to misspeaking repeatedly while giving information in relation to a murder investigation, then I think we can presume that the wall-scaling Guede can go down as easily as he can go up - even in the dark.

 

[mdana]

'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:

Are you familiar with the term coerced confession? If not, then you live in a world that is not conducive to reason

 

[otto]

Weren't you the one arguing it was just trace DNA found on MK by RG. 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?

No, not at all.

 

[otto]

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

<self-snipped>

I view Hendry and Fisher as groupies. They are people that have attached themselves to the case and represented themselves as experts. Would you rather I refer to them with another term, and if so, which one?

Please cite and quote where I have misrepresented someone else. Personally, I don't think that is possible as I am only presenting my own opinion, not repeating and modifying what others have to say.

 

[dgfred]

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.

Now where do I see the accusation posted of 'ad hom' or 'strawman' alot :waitasec: . Oh, I remember.

'spoonfed distortions' and 'outright lies' :innocent: . Now that reminds me of the campaign for AK innocence more that ILE. :floorlaugh:

'Believers' in their innocence can not honestly claim only the pro-guilt side shows hypocrisy IMO. Claiming the media is the reason they were convicted
proves the point anyway.

 

[otto]

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.)

My point was that Knox did not clarify for police on Nov 6 that she lied about Patrick. In order to support my point, I only needed the one sentence: "And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik ...". There is nothing to be gained in terms of supporting my point by copying and pasting the entire letter as my point would be lost in the confusion.

 

[dgfred]

Are you familiar with the term coerced confession? If not, then you live in a world that is not conducive to reason

Hahaha, your slip (aka agenda) is showing IMO. These seem to all be the old FOA 'talking points' you are using. Really, we have been thru all this before many times. Check out some of the old threads if you have some time.

 

[otto]

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.

Regardless of what Hendry says regarding additional keys to the front door, a resident of the cottage has testified that there was no fifth key. Therefore, Hendry and his theory are mistaken.

Which defendant is claiming that Guede acted alone?

 

[mdana]

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.

If you believe that was derogatory, I apologize.

You expect Ms. Mellas to have a complete knowledge of the situation in the two week time frame, when LE had many more resources yet had no such omniscent capability. Then you jump out to a later time frame to make your point, which IMO destroys your original point, because you have to go outside your original allegation. I think that is an extremely unreasonable position.

We will have to leave it at we agree to disagree. I will refrain from commenting on any of your posts, if I am in your judgement working outside the S.A.

 

[otto]

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.

In fact, if you believe Guede then, per his 2010 statement introduced as evidence in court on Monday, Knox and Sollecito were the other people involved in the murder, not the brother of a mafia guy or any other stranger.

 

[otto]

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.

Hmmmmmm, sounds like it would be fairly easy to exclude the possibility that anyone climbed in or out through the window ... thus the prosecution theory of a staged break-in which is confirmed by the placement of broken glass on the objects that were strewn around the room by the murderers.

 

[dgfred]

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.

Well maybe 'credible', not that I believe RG... but it seems the defense teams don't think the jurors will believe it.

 

[Nova]

I view Hendry and Fisher as groupies. They are people that have attached themselves to the case and represented themselves as experts. Would you rather I refer to them with another term, and if so, which one?

I do not share your fascination with Fisher and know little about him. Hendry, however, has his credentials and has laid out his analysis of the crime in some detail. You may respond to his theory of the crime without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

I doubt either has written more about this case than you have. May I refer to you as a Giuliano Mignini groupie from here on?

Please cite and quote where I have misrepresented someone else. Personally, I don't think that is possible as I am only presenting my own opinion, not repeating and modifying what others have to say.

I have done so at least a dozen times in the past two or three pages.

 

[Nova]

My point was that Knox did not clarify for police on Nov 6 that she lied about Patrick. In order to support my point, I only needed the one sentence: "And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik ...". There is nothing to be gained in terms of supporting my point by copying and pasting the entire letter as my point would be lost in the confusion.

You are being disingenuous here. You took half a sentence out of context in order to prove the opposite of what the sentence actually says.

And you got caught. By more than one of us.

*I* chose to post excerpts from the entire statement to show how often AK reiterates that she is confused, her memories are "unreal" even to her, she can't reconcile her actual memories with things ILE has told her are true, etc.

The totality of the statement makes your misrepresentation even more egregious.

 

[mdana]

Now where do I see the accusation posted of 'ad hom' or 'strawman' alot :waitasec: . Oh, I remember.

'spoonfed distortions' and 'outright lies' :innocent: . Now that reminds me of the campaign for AK innocence more that ILE. :floorlaugh:

'Believers' in their innocence can not honestly claim only the pro-guilt side shows hypocrisy IMO. Claiming the media is the reason they were convicted
proves the point anyway.

Yet again, you misdirect my original post into a fallacy. I never stated the media convicted the two, I clearly stated my believe it had an impact.

Off the top of my head these were all trumpted by the prosecution and were released by the media. All were false or grossly misleading to AK, RS, or PL.

Case closed-When PL was arrested.

PL had cell phone pings near MK's apartment during the time of death.

Claims of drug fueled sex orgy and ties to satan/black mass.

Release of bathroom covered in luminol to look like blood.

The sex lingerie spree.

Meredith Dies tonight text.

AK and RS cleaned up the crime scene.

RS called police after postal police arrived.

 

[emyr]

'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:

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Reading the whole statement, she sounds very confused to me, and to me it appears that she is saying she could be wrong and Lumamba should not be jailed on her word.

And, in this day and age, we know people give false confessions:
http://www.injusticebusters.com/04/False_confession2.shtml

This is one of the least damaging false confessions I've ever seen. I call it false, because clearly what she says happened with Lumamba did not happen.

If I was on the jury, the items that would have caused me to convict would have been the bra clasp, and the luminol footprints.

 

[SMK]

Regardless of what Hendry says regarding additional keys to the front door, a resident of the cottage has testified that there was no fifth key. Therefore, Hendry and his theory are mistaken.

Which defendant is claiming that Guede acted alone?

How does this make the theory mistaken? If the door needs a key to lock it, and all 4 had this key, including MK, and he was locked in, and later took the keys, how is Hendry's theory compromised???:waitasec:

 

[otto]

I do not share your fascination with Fisher and know little about him. Hendry, however, has his credentials and has laid out his analysis of the crime in some detail. You may respond to his theory of the crime without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

I doubt either has written more about this case than you have. May I refer to you as a Giuliano Mignini groupie from here on?

I have done so at least a dozen times in the past two or three pages.

What does "ad hominem attack" mean in the context of this discussion?

 

[emyr]

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.

Except it didn't cut Knox, because she had no cuts on her body.

 

[otto]

You are being disingenuous here. You took half a sentence out of context in order to prove the opposite of what the sentence actually says.

And you got caught. By more than one of us.

*I* chose to post excerpts from the entire statement to show how often AK reiterates that she is confused, her memories are "unreal" even to her, she can't reconcile her actual memories with things ILE has told her are true, etc.

The totality of the statement makes your misrepresentation even more egregious.

I got caught providing a direct quote from Knox's gift statement where she says that she stands behind her claims about Patrick? Okay.