Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #17

[Allusonz]

I think many people would feel such a scenario to be conducive to hysteria and false confession. I think if one grasps the type of person Amanda was at that age, and how peculiar , even obnoxious, her difference must have made her seem to her interrogators, one can see why it might wind up with her near-bizarre attempts to appease them.

As well it did show how naive she was when she asked if she needed a lawyer instead of demanding one. The response of PLE was that it would be worse for her

 

[Allusonz]

Thanks for that... I wonder what "low mental capability" means though. The book about the case "Dreams of Ada" makes no mention of it, which is puzzling.

As a sidenote, I believe Emyr's post cites examples of individuals who succumb to false confessions that are neither children nor mentally deficient.

ETA: the article you provide does not seem to assert that Fontenot indeed had any mental deficiencies, only that he may have had PTSD from his mother's death and had a hard time understanding legal terminology. Unless I missed something...

I as well had not heard of this pertaining to this case. I believe they are trying to state that the state of mind would be different

 

[Allusonz]

Perhaps they believed the lie/dream/imagination/confusion/truth that AK told them AT THAT MOMENT since she TOLD them she did let him and what happened.

What does no proof at that moment have to do with her accusing Patrick of committing the murder? That is what she SAID at that very moment.

It is possible that they did believe this to be the case. The evidence does not back it thus you must revisit the theory and allow the evidence to chart the course of the investigation.

Regarding PL. It truly is time to let this one go. They could of brought him in for questioning instead of arresting him especially since she stated that it seemed more unreal than real. It happens all the time until LE can get forensics back, and a stronger case.

Instead they chose to arrest him, interrogate his alibi for 7 hours, keep him in jail for another week and refused to allow him to reopen his business. That was not AK's doing that was PLE's doing and it is time the blame is placed where it should be

 

[Allusonz]

Well turn that around and look at the investigators perspective.

You have a gruesome murder, you have at least suspicious individuals and what looks like to you as an experienced investigator a staged break-in. One of those suspicious individuals actually lived at the crime scene. Both individuals were at the crime scene when policed arrived. Both acted 'odd' after the murder was discovered. They are sitting in seperate rooms at the police station.

You tell one that you KNOW (even though only suspicious) the other was there when the crime was committed. The one you tell immediately says his first recollection was a load of rubbish and the other left his home (which was both's alibi) during the time frame of the murder.

You then go to the other and tell them the first suspicious individual has stated the other (she) left his home and did not return until after the time frame of the murder. She then drops her alibi and states meeting the murderer at the courts, letting him in, and hearing him murder Meredith.
Hours later she does not plainly state she was not involved, but brings up dreams and imagining things. This is not a retraction by any means BTW.

LE did exactly what they should have done after a confession such as hers.

Why would the police AT THAT VERY MOMENT not go and arrest a person suspected of a gruesome murder? Should they wait to decipher AK to figure out if it was a dream? Should they not arrest Patrick because the story was the best truth she could remember? Should they wait weeks for forensics to back it up? NO.

I really don't understand the point of view you are taking regarding this... if that is really your honest position.

As stated I can understand that they suspected them. Many here to my knowledge have no quarrel with that as it is simply part of the job. When someone goes missing or is murdered they do look at the people closest to the situation first and try to rule them out. The issue is that they had no evidence to support the arrests or the convictions

Nova I see has explained this in greater detail

 

[Allusonz]

From TJMK Website; Statement Analysis

I have mixed feelings about statement analysis. I know Dr. Andrew G Hodges is big on it, and is a world-renowned FBI psychiatrist and author. He gives this take on what he deems "Thought Print Forensics":


And here is an analysis of a statement of Knox by a colleague:

I still, however, am not fully convinced of it's forensic infallibility.....

I think this is a tool but I don't find it to be a reliable one that I would base a case on especially after a suspect has been told they definately have evidence that you did it or were involved, the length of the interview/interrogation, how an individual responds etc., etc., etc. Then there is the question of the credibility of the individual doing the analysis. MOO

 

[Allusonz]

The very fact that ANYONE agrees to "imagine" something they have said never occurred should be a red flag to any fair-minded person. Obviously, the suspect agreeing to "imagine" is already being manipulated, and not necessarily in the direction of the truth.

Needs repeating. I hear about all the things AK and RS supposedly did that raised red flags like eating pizza. What I see more red flags from are PLE. That is scary

 

[Allusonz]

I agree with you here, SMK, except that the case WILL go to the Supreme Court, no matter what the appellate court rules. I don't want you to get your hopes up that you will get finality this Fall.

I am truly hoping that they are aquitted and that Hellmann takes his gavel and tosses it around with a very heavy hand and it does not go there :giggle:

I know I am dreaming but it's a truly a super duper cool dream where Mignini, Stephanoni, MN, Commodi, and a few others are twiddling their fingers in a jail cell :innocent:

 

[Allusonz]

Just exactly who was doing the dancing, fred?

I'd say it was PLE, who listened to AK insist for two hours that she was with RS at the time of the crime, then asked her to "imagine" instead being at the crime scene with PL, and announced "case solved" as soon as she did.

That was quite a rumba!

A rumba? No way!!! How about a chicken dance (teasing all) better stop before this quirky sense of humour gets me in trouble again :giggle:

 

[Allusonz]

In re the PMF view, there is some sort of object lesson here on the mob mentality engendered by the internet.

Even seen in the light most favorable to the prosecution, AK is guilty of using poor judgment, choosing her friends unwisely and getting caught up in something she couldn't control. There is no evidence she is a serial killer, none at all.

Those aren't her skin cells inside the victim.

BBM

They sure are not...

 

[Allusonz]

I've yet to hear anyone from the pro-guilt side form any sort of timeline regarding the sequence of events that led to her confession. Whenever it's been mentioned it's simply put as "She was questioned for two hours, bopped on the head twice and out popped a confession". There is always evasion re the text message, the scenario involving the translator telling her a personal story of breaking her leg and forgetting what happened, and why once Mignini came in her statement only changed to suit PLE's theory of the crime... among other things that don't add up.
The same goes for any sort of plausible scenario for the murder. Again, it's basically been "Amanda, Rudy and Rafaelle met up to party and yada, yada, yada... things go out of control". Reminds me of a Seinfeld episode...

Seinfeld Clip - The Yada-Yada - YouTube

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[Allusonz]

The knee-jerk defense of Perugia LE is just as mystifying to me as the insistence that Amanda Knox is a mad, sex-killing fiend. Even if one somehow finds sufficient evidence to deem AK and RS guilty, it's still obvious that PLE cops wear giant shoes and travel in a teeny-tiny car.

yada yada yada

 

[Allusonz]

I wanted to ask a question.

I was thinking about the whole laundry thing, and I was wondering if AK and RS had seen MK put stuff in the washing machine before going out.

I do not remember hearing anything indicating that they testified to seeing this. If they didn't, I am skeptical that MK put those clothes in the wash before she left for the party. The reason being, from what I understand, she got home at 530am, and was tired as all get out. She didn't get up until RF had already left the house. So then it seems RS and AK just kind of described MK leaving, not doing any chores first.

I am going on memory here but I believe there was testimony that MK had put in a load of laundry prior to leaving. As well you are right with respect to it still being damp after 2 days

 

[Allusonz]

her jacket is a good example, because she'd seen RS and AK before she'd left the house. What if she'd hugged them?

Mk's Jacket was on the floor by her body. It was then dragged through blood. It appeared on the floor by the rolled up posters, and it finally came to rest in what appeared to be a clothes hamper for DIRTY clothes of all things!

Yup it is. As well as any clothes she was wearing, shoes etc. I am sorry it still burns me up to see what they did to her stuff

 

[Allusonz]

Unless investigators have been embarrassed and put on blast this way in the past, then I don't know why Hellmann would not overturn it.

If it's par for the course for prosecutors to be on appeal for abuse of office, for the investigations to be called out for being slipshod and if DNA testing is regularly called into question in Italy's trials, then maybe I'd agree that it would not be overturned.

However, if AK and RS's case is indeed the eye of a perfect storm of first time stuff like this, then I'd say they have a good chance of getting out.

There is one very interesting part to this entire story. Mignini's appeal starts in November and I wonder if that will have any influence on how this ruling goes. As well if the ruling is in favour of the defense will it reflect on his own appeal. I could see the possibility of additional charges coming his way

 

[Allusonz]

This is a dumb point, but the movie Amelie is very whimsical and light-hearted. Most of the movie's Amanda listed as liking were in the same vein (They were going to watch "Stardust" next). I suppose murderers come in all personality types, but you couldn't have picked a less likely film to inspire a murderous, or even sex-crazed mood.

Edited to add: There's even a scene where Amelie is having sex and she finds the experience both bizarre and amusing. She giggles. It's not a good mood-setter for what they are accused of. In addition, Amanda was attracted to Raffaelle because he looked like Harry Potter, another whimsical story she was in the process of reading. And she spent all her time singing Beatles songs ("all you need is love.") None of this really matches someone who is after aggressive, violent sex, and thinks of other people as prudish etc. etc.

Very valid points in my opinion. There have been a few threads where the type of movies etc. have played a role in peoples opinions. I as well have to agree with you on this

 

[Sonata]

Very valid points in my opinion. There have been a few threads where the type of movies etc. have played a role in peoples opinions. I as well have to agree with you on this

Yeah I don't think that's dumb or irrelevant. It's not EVIDENCE but that does not mean that it shouldn't be taken into account outside of the courts. If we're making character judgements, which seems to be a trend on both sides, then this seems like a key point to me. I feel like if we're making character judgements on the negative side, this observation should be used to tip the scale in the other direction if you get me.

 

[Nova]

As stated I can understand that they suspected them. Many here to my knowledge have no quarrel with that as it is simply part of the job. When someone goes missing or is murdered they do look at the people closest to the situation first and try to rule them out. The issue is that they had no evidence to support the arrests or the convictions

Nova I see has explained this in greater detail

I would have no quarrel if the PLE had found AK odd and decided to investigate her further.

But what they did was find her odd and decide she was guilty. Then they proceeded to lie and badger her and her boyfriend for statements to support that decision. Then the forensics came back and instead of adjusting their theory to accommodate the new evidence, they merely crossed out one name and wrote in another, still insisting that the "hippie chick" was some sort of criminal mastermind.

 

[Sonata]

Can someone please just explain to me what the actual evidence proving that the break-in was staged is?

I know the courts ruled that it was indeed staged but I still do not understand HOW they came to that conclusion.

The only thing I have heard is about positioning of the window and the glass spray. But the glass spray seems debatable as the shutter system is so complicated and I don't see how the window positioning can without a doubt prove that it was not a break-in.

I have seen those two things debated on here, but what did the court documents actually state as the evidence?

 

[SMK]

Can someone please just explain to me what the actual evidence proving that the break-in was staged is?

I know the courts ruled that it was indeed staged but I still do not understand HOW they came to that conclusion.

The only thing I have heard is about positioning of the window and the glass spray. But the glass spray seems debatable as the shutter system is so complicated and I don't see how the window positioning can without a doubt prove that it was not a break-in.

I have seen those two things debated on here, but what did the court documents actually state as the evidence?

I always questioned this , too, as usually when cops suspect staging, it is more detailed and an analysis in done in a formal forensic manner. Glass on top of clothes could happen with the rock being thrown from the outside, if clothes were on the floor. FR compromised the crime scene in any case. I am not at all certain the break-in was staged.

 

[SMK]

I wanted to ask a question.

I was thinking about the whole laundry thing, and I was wondering if AK and RS had seen MK put stuff in the washing machine before going out.

I do not remember hearing anything indicating that they testified to seeing this. If they didn't, I am skeptical that MK put those clothes in the wash before she left for the party. The reason being, from what I understand, she got home at 530am, and was tired as all get out. She didn't get up until RF had already left the house. So then it seems RS and AK just kind of described MK leaving, not doing any chores first.

So if they did not witness this, I was wondering if MK's phone really did drop the call to her parents at 856pm and she decided that she'd try them after she did the laundry. She stripped the top of her bedding off and took a load into the washroom.

Meanwhile, RG heard the front door opening and turned off the light in the bathroom. While he's sitting there, thinking Oh, crap--literally, MK is getting her laundry together and into the wash. Maybe she left her jacket on because the house hadn't warmed up and maybe RF's door to her room was closed. Or maybe MK noticed what had happened in RF's room after doing the laundry and she screamed, causing RS to have to emerge from the bathroom.

Or whatever other scenero could have occured.

I'm just wondering about this laundry because it's odd that she would have left clothes sitting wet in the wash from about 4pm to about 9pm. Well, maybe she'd do that, but going from my own personal experience, if I'd been partying till 530am the night before and had slept in, the last thing I'd be doing is laundry before going out again. Esp laundry I couldn't wear because it was wet. It would seem that she would have at least wanted to let the cycle go through so it could be drying while she was gone, but maybe she just didn't have enough time for all that after she woke up.

But, the laundry is also a problem for the prosecution, because I don't understand why it wasn't getting sorted or hung up to dry if the murder had occurred so late in the evening. And I wouldn't understand any scenero of her remaining in her jacket and tennis shoes for a few hours before starting the laundry which is why I think she could have started it when she first walked in the door, and trying to stay warm in the cottage. But she didn't even have time to turn on the heat. So I guess then I'd like to know where the heat switch is, because that might be a clue as to how she discovered RG, too.

But anyways, I just can't see her at home doin laundry in her jacket after being home for quite some time.

It could be possible that she started the laundry on Halloween, though, and just never took it out. Since no one else had done laundry the next day, the roommates might not have noticed that she'd actually been attempting to do her laundry the other day, but then went to the halloween party and overslept, etc, etc. Laundry can still be damp after 2 days, too, so...

What do you guys think?

The whole laundry thing always confused me as well. I had originally believed reports that AK and RS were "cleaning up" with the laundry, which is why I thought they were guilty in the beginning. Then, it was reported that MK put a load in before retiring. The only way she might have been doing laundry in her jacket is if the house was cold. It was about 45 degrees out. Yes, it may have been a prior time, with others away.....Good point about the heat, and the discovery of Guede.....