Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #17

[Allusonz]

Are you sure I said all that??? You make it sound as if they came together and made up some kind of ingenious plan to murder Meredith. I never thought that it happened that way. IMO it is much simpler and less complicated. The murder was a result of something silly and stupid where the wrong people came together.

I don't understand what you mean with your weak-willed stuff. Apples and oranges. Sollecito (and AK) came into the police station somewhere after 10pm and within half an hour they had written down his statement. Where do you come up with your hours? He doesn't claim any head hitting, or police that imagined what he should imagine leading him onto the path of imagination (as AK would like us to believe). He said straight that he lied, that his girlfriend told him to lie, and he didn't realize the inconsistencies. How much clearer do you want it?

You were discussing group dynamics emyr simply pointed out that there was a group dynamic within PLE which would be feasable considering that there was a tag team of 12 detectives. Add Mignini into the mix and you get the Satanic rite drug fueled sex orgy which was his original theory

It still though is a group dynamic they simply work together. There also appears to be a dynamic between Stephanoni/Commodi which was apparent during the last hearing. I simply wonder how they thought they could get the latest antic past Hellmann. Hellmann caught them at their own game

 

[Allusonz]

What does that matter?

Of course the police do not have to tell the truth to witnesses turned suspects. That is part of the trick to get them to confess or name the other accused (all over the world). Nothing wrong with it IMO. The truth has no need of lies.

Which as I am sure you do know has it's own set of issues. This may not be the case if the movement to change that law passes.

Some of the best detectives I have seen interrogate do so without lying. SV posted a bit back how the links to videos of "why you should not talk to LE without a lawyer" (not exact words). The LE detective was very enlightening

 

[Allusonz]

Then why use lies to get to it? Lying to someone when you know they are withholding the truth is one thing. Lying to confuse them about someone they have only known for a week is another. I think Dr. Sollecito told Raffaele shortly after to distance himself from Amanda, that she "knew something".

As Amanda said, "I know I did not kill Meredith, so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of."

BBM

How true this turned out except not in the sense you are presenting it. The media, Mignini, PLE, Stephani all misrepresented information about her. I do expect to see alot of lawsuits comming out of this. What I don't think some realize is how far reaching those lawsuits will go.

 

[Allusonz]

I read something like it again before I went to bed last night but didn't come back to fix this post. What I read twice now is that when the shoe didn't fit, they bought out the bra clasp. It was like they were saying that when RG finally admitted the shoe print was his, then they brought out this clasp, but I had always thought they mentioned the clasp right away. I don't think I'm wrong about the gist of what i'm saying, but I need help clarifying the facts before you take it as gospel.

IIRC wasnt_me is that it was actually RS's family that simply caught the error by counting the number of rings on the bottom of the shoes. I could be wrong here now though as that is something I have not focused on much

 

[wasnt_me]

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

or telepathy :giggle:

I think it was tin cans and a string that went from RS's to RG's. Makes the most sense.

The weird part of it is that getting the "okay" from PL and turning off their phones meant they planned to do something wrong. That is the implication, right? And it fits with bringing the knife before hand. Yet, without phones and the ok from PL, the turning off the phones and toting of the knife don't make sense. Neither does having a chance meeting with RG on the streets. RG said he and AK said "hi, bye" to each other if they did see each other. Why in the world would it change on a night that he'd see her with her BF? And it makes no sense for them to break their habit of spending the night at his place, and going to her house for a shower and lunch the next day.

What really happened does follow their week-long pattern. They spend the night at RS's, AK goes home for the shower.

 

[wasnt_me]

here's the picture of the glass shard we'd discussed earlier.

 

[SMK]

here's the picture of the glass shard we'd discussed earlier.

Indeed, it is very clear in this image. Can you refresh my memory, on what is significant about it? Sorry, I am the type who gets bogged down in the psychological aspects of the case, and understands the broad outline and implications regarding evidence, but sometimes am foggy on some of the in-depth discussions. Hope I am not annoying you.

 

[SMK]

Just took notice of a post on PMF, where it is said that on Websleuths , desperation has made posters attack the Kerchers. Surprised me, because I do not think anyone has attacked them here. Most have said they feel sympathy, understand their position, etc....

 

[emyr]

Are you sure I said all that??? You make it sound as if they came together and made up some kind of ingenious plan to murder Meredith. I never thought that it happened that way. IMO it is much simpler and less complicated. The murder was a result of something silly and stupid where the wrong people came together.

I don't understand what you mean with your weak-willed stuff. Apples and oranges. Sollecito (and AK) came into the police station somewhere after 10pm and within half an hour they had written down his statement. Where do you come up with your hours? He doesn't claim any head hitting, or police that imagined what he should imagine leading him onto the path of imagination (as AK would like us to believe). He said straight that he lied, that his girlfriend told him to lie, and he didn't realize the inconsistencies. How much clearer do you want it?

Heh. Let me back up. You said you thought that they got caught up in a group dynamic and commited murder. (got swept up in the moment, essentially, was how I understood it.)

As for times, I could be confusing Sollecito with Amanda's times. I'll defer that his time could've been shorter, I just can't remember.

As for my point. It just seems that if you can believe a person would get caught up in the moment to commit murder, then why is it difficult to believe they could get caught up in the moment and lie?

On these forums people have given several examples where people have been swayed by the police and told false stories that fit the police's suspicions. So that kind of thing does happen. There are plenty of examples of people committing murder by being swept up in the moment (although I can't think of one quite like this scenario).

 

[wasnt_me]

Just took notice of a post on PMF, where it is said that on Websleuths , desperation has made posters attack the Kerchers. Surprised me, because I do not think anyone has attacked them here. Most have said they feel sympathy, understand their position, etc....

You ought to just ignore that. It has nothing to do with the case, and is just fodder. What I love about this board is that it's not into a tit for tat with the other forums, as there is no reason to be. I, personally, could care less what anyone at PMF thinks, let alone what they'd think about me. Additionally, I have noticed that the same people tend to post or look at the same boards, you can draw your own conclusion about that...

As for the glass, remember we were trying to decide if it got there because AK and RS, or one of them dropped it after "staging" the crime scene or whether it had fallen off RG somehow after he actually broke in.

The MOT report doesn't believe it's possible for RG to have deposited it, but thinks it makes more sense for AK or RS to have done it after breaking RF's window.

I see it like this. RG either dropped it after he broke in and cased the rooms before making himself at home, or he actually went in RF's room on his "stabbing and bathroom break" to look out the window, which gives him a good view of the goings on in outside. He tracked the glass back in there when he went for a final rummage through her things and to cover her before leaving. Or soemthing to that effect. That could account for the weird blob in RF's room on the floor.

With it being right next to a blood shoe print, I'm thinking it could have fallen out of a sock or his jeans before the sexual assault took place. Maybe out of his shoe when he removed it.

 

[wasnt_me]

of course you guys saw this, right? It's very long. 12/18/07.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/sopralluogo.mp4


I just started watching it and several times, the investigators crossed the borders to the room without changing shoes, including the videographer. And because they didn't do the investigation right, they appear to be having to remember where everything was from pictures. Eye roll. This might sound petty, but their cords are dragging all over the floors everywhere, too.

I can't believe they just then on this day put a "W" on the wall for those hand streaks by her bed. They did the same thing with the purse and the sock. Sorry that fradulent. How you gonna plop a letter down and take pics as if that's where you found the thing? I don't get it. Or is it that they just care about the letter being photographed with the item even if that wasn't where it originally was? Then how the world do you investigate when nothing was where it was when photographed?

Then they wipe it like they're wiping a snotty kid's nose. It reminds me of the Jodi Arias/Travis case, which is starting any day now, actually. In their crime scene photos, you can see that the investigator took out parts of the blood covered wall. They didn't just rub the blood into the wall.

 

[Nova]

I know many of you have seen me post why I dislike it when people try to diagnose someone here in the threads as I go through them. You have all probably seen me state so but I do have my reasons. Don't I always? :giggle:

As much as it may seem that AK could have an autism or other disorder I truly do dislike it being stated so and here is why.

If she had been previously diagnosed I am certain that this would of been part of her defense.

If she had not been diagnosed and it had been missed she truly should be diagnosed by a professional

I will share this story as to why it should be done and why.

My son is quirky but he is also highly intelligent. The school was certain that he had a form of ADHD and insisted on testing him. I in turn said no I will take him to an expert and have him tested.

For anyone that has ever gone through the testing for ADHD etc., you are probably very aware of how the process goes. The first session was 4 hours. For my son whom is active, can't sit still etc., this was in his mind cruel. About 3 hours into the session the specialist asked if he could do a different kind of test and I said sure.

It turns out the reason my son was always so restless etc., is that he has a high I.Q. As he is adopted I am sorry I cannot take the credit for it :giggle:

The specialist suggested a program for "gifted" students and I thought it over for about a whole 10 seconds before I said no.

Here is my reason

If you are that intelligent and become bored that easy, at the end of the day you must still learn to interact with students that are not quite so gifted. It does not mean you can hum to yourself waiting for everyone else to finish the exam you completed in minutes compared to the hours it took others.

It does not mean you can use your finger and cheek to mimick the beat of a song that a person is happening to be hearing in their head

It does not mean that since the group of students are acting up and you don't want to have homework you can get up and move to a different table, complete the assignment and hand it in as an individual when it was to be done as a group

I could sit here and list pages of things he would do to occupy himself during school that many professionals mistook as a disorder.

What he did need to learn was what was appropriate behaviour and what was not in various settings. This meant that often people tried to pin a label on him which is wrong IMO. The one thing I did note was that he seemed to mature slower. I spoke with this specialist for some time and we decided on a course of action. I went to the school, spoke with the teachers and asked that he be given additional activities. This included additional school work, tasks helping the teacher, tasks including helping other students that were having difficulty.

Was he considered "weird"? Yes. Did he mature? Yes but much slower than many others. Did the extra assignments hurt him? No Was he ADHD? No. Were the teachers wrong? Yes Does he still get bored? Yes Can he cope with it better now at 22 than in grade 9? Yes Does he still do weird things? Yes but not as much Can he recite verbatim an entire episode to a show? Yes

Does he have a disorder? No

Good for you (and lucky for your son)!

I'm sorry if my post struck a nerve. I thought I had made it clear that I was NOT presuming to diagnose AK from afar, that in fact I have absolutely no qualifications to diagnose anybody in any context.

If that wasn't clear, I do apologize. At the end of the day, I think people are just trying to say nothing about AK's allegedly "odd" behavior indicates she committed a murder.

 

[Nova]

Well, at least this time you said 'perhaps'...

Perhaps Filomena told her dad she thinks her lazy cottage mate AK killed Meredith and might drag her into it. Perhaps that was AK's plan, to call Filomena and get her to find the body and contaminate/confuse the crime scene even more than AK already had tried to do. Perhaps Filomena's dad told her to tell the truth and don't accuse anybody of rape/murder. Perhaps her dad told her that if she already told a lie, to try to correct it as soon as possible. Perhaps she contacted a lawyer in regards to their lease and what had happened at the cottage. Perhaps comes in handy.

"...at least this time..."? I don't know what you mean. (Just to be clear: I'm only saying I don't know. I am NOT implying I have any problem with your post.)

I thought I was defending FR by suggesting a reasonable explanation for the speed with which she "lawyered up." I honestly don't know, so I phrased the idea as a hypothetical.

Did the word "perhaps" make it seem otherwise?

 

[Nova]

While I certainly do not expect anyone to take the Burleigh text as Gospel, it does indicate something very different to what I bolded in your post: That Sollecito began to speak like this when the police repeatedly refused to accept what he was telling them, that he and Amanda had been together at home - and after they told him he was mixed up, that they knew she met PL, knew she was covering for someone, knew she was involved....

I don't for a moment believe RS walked into the police station and calmly and for no reason volunteered that he had lied to LE on the advice of his girlfriend. Come on!

 

[Nova]

What does that matter?

Of course the police do not have to tell the truth to witnesses turned suspects. That is part of the trick to get them to confess or name the other accused (all over the world). Nothing wrong with it IMO. The truth has no need of lies.

If "the truth has no need of lies," then why do the police tell lies? Aren't they looking for the truth?

The reason it matters is similar to the reason it matters if the premises in a syllogism are false. False premises (lies told by LE) tend to lead to false conclusions (misstatements by suspects).

 

[sherlockh]

Heh. Let me back up. You said you thought that they got caught up in a group dynamic and commited murder. (got swept up in the moment, essentially, was how I understood it.)

As for times, I could be confusing Sollecito with Amanda's times. I'll defer that his time could've been shorter, I just can't remember.

As for my point. It just seems that if you can believe a person would get caught up in the moment to commit murder, then why is it difficult to believe they could get caught up in the moment and lie?

On these forums people have given several examples where people have been swayed by the police and told false stories that fit the police's suspicions. So that kind of thing does happen. There are plenty of examples of people committing murder by being swept up in the moment (although I can't think of one quite like this scenario).

Ok, I get it now. I still think there is a big difference between attacking someone in a group and 'lying' to police. I don't necessary see them as weak. Especially AK showed exactly the opposite during her trials. Still I don't think any of them would have attacked Meredith by themselves. The group dynamic made it worse because IMO they supplement each other in all the wrong ways.

The examples of coercions shown in this thread show exactly that this is no coercion. The examples showed coercions in a monotone setting with 1 or 2 interrogators. I have not seen any example of coercions in a room full of people. The examples also showed coercions usually take a very long time and not just a few hours. The few people that falsely confess in a few hours are usually kids or people with low mental capability like Karl Fontenot. Both AK and RS are bright young students. I would recommend to read the trial testimony of AK (available on PMF). Even the biggest 'friends' start to frown reading that gibberish

 

[SMK]

Ok, I get it now. I still think there is a big difference between attacking someone in a group and 'lying' to police. I don't necessary see them as weak. Especially AK showed exactly the opposite during her trials. Still I don't think any of them would have attacked Meredith by themselves. The group dynamic made it worse because IMO they supplement each other in all the wrong ways.

The examples of coercions shown in this thread show exactly that this is no coercion. The examples showed coercions in a monotone setting with 1 or 2 interrogators. I have not seen any example of coercions in a room full of people. The examples also showed coercions usually take a very long time and not just a few hours. The few people that falsely confess in a few hours are usually kids or people with low mental capability like Karl Fontenot. Both AK and RS are bright young students. I would recommend to read the trial testimony of AK (available on PMF). Even the biggest 'friends' start to frown reading that gibberish

I understand, but I think the argument has always been that AK and RS were a bit foggy from pot smoking, a bit odd, and paranoid, and that the police immediately said things such as they had proof they were there, and unnerved them.

To me, understandable, even if it does not fit the protocol for false confessions. They were being told, NO, what you say we will not accept. Now say something else. Or 30 years in prison.

AK and RS were immediately disliked, immediately set upon as the odd ones out. There was yelling, there was intimidation. This by authority figures at a time of severe stress and confusion.

 

[dgfred]

Which as I am sure you do know has it's own set of issues. This may not be the case if the movement to change that law passes.

Some of the best detectives I have seen interrogate do so without lying. SV posted a bit back how the links to videos of "why you should not talk to LE without a lawyer" (not exact words). The LE detective was very enlightening

Not really an issue IMO. Don't think it will change anywhere in the world.

As a detective you have a suspicion at least that an accused (with another accused) has committed a murder. The accused has so far not been forthcoming with the facts of what they did the night of the murder. You tell one accused that the other has left them without an alibi (a lie) when before that they had a joined alibi. That accused suddenly drops 'their' alibi and changes his/her story now leaving the other without an alibi. Now the detective goes to the other accused saying the first accused has left the second accused without an alibi (no lie). The second accused now SUDDENLY changes his/her story, not accusing the other party of the murder because they did not do that to him/her, but bringing a totally new suspect into the picture as actually committing the murder. Sounds like good detective work to me. I understand why some here have a problem with it though :innocent: .

 

[SMK]

Not really an issue IMO. Don't think it will change anywhere in the world.

As a detective you have a suspicion at least that an accused (with another accused) has committed a murder. The accused has so far not been forthcoming with the facts of what they did the night of the murder. You tell one accused that the other has left them without an alibi (a lie) when before that they had a joined alibi. That accused suddenly drops 'their' alibi and changes his/her story now leaving the other without an alibi. Now the detective goes to the other accused saying the first accused has left the second accused without an alibi (no lie). The second accused now SUDDENLY changes his/her story, not accusing the other party of the murder because they did not do that to him/her, but bringing a totally new suspect into the picture as actually committing the murder. Sounds like good detective work to me. I understand why some here have a problem with it though :innocent: .

What is your understanding of why "some here have a problem with it."??:waitasec:

 

[dgfred]

I understand, but I think the argument has always been that AK and RS were a bit foggy from pot smoking, a bit odd, and paranoid, and that the police immediately said things such as they had proof they were there, and unnerved them.

To me, understandable, even if it does not fit the protocol for false confessions. They were being told, NO, what you say we will not accept. Now say something else. Or 30 years in prison.

AK and RS were immediately disliked, immediately set upon as the odd ones out. There was yelling, there was intimidation. This by authority figures at a time of severe stress and confusion.

*Perhaps they should have gone to the Memorial thing for Meredith, instead of smoking pot and going out to eat. Perhaps they should have stayed clear-headed if there was the possibility of at least one of them being questioned that evening. Odd behavior yes, paranoid maybe from smoking pot... stupid definately IMO.

*Why does the police saying 'they have proof they were there' have ANY effect on a totally innocent person? They were not tortured! Why become 'unnerved'??? Potty breaks and after-pizza snacks excluded.

"I don't know" or "I have no idea what you are talking about" works just fine.
Whether they accept it or not has no bearing, you are innocent. Instead... ask to be shown the PROOF that you were at the crime scene or not telling the truth.

Most people under suspicion of murder are disliked, it is only natural. IMO their behavior and statements are what made them the 'odd ones out' and brought them under suspicion.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the was plenty of stress on AK and RS... just the exact cause of that stress is viewed much differently between you and I :innocent: .