Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #17

[Allusonz]

WE were debating what the investigators would have thought/done AT THE TIME she accused Patrick. :banghead:

*She said she met him at the basketball court. There is NO proof on the computer of human activity during the time frame of the murder.

*She said he came to the cottage with her. In fact there is significant proof the break in was staged. Only supporters claim otherwise.

*How can the police know you were not there if you SAY you were???

*TOD is not an exact science and can only guess time of death within a certain time frame. No duodenum 'theory' can change that fact.

*The media was fed information from both sides, but the jury ruled on the evidence presented in court... not the media.

This seems like the same kind of circular opinions/theories as yesterday :waitasec: .

Am I having a flashback... or is it a dream?

So if I tell you I had a dream or it seems to be more dream like, much like the Ryan Ferguson case, you are going to rush out and arrest everyone that states something is like a dream without the evidence to back it up?

My disagreement with you starts with the fact that often it is stated the Knox PR machine released all this information when in fact we know that to be false. The proof is in the pudding so to speak. Information was released that the family had simply no access to and they did not hire the PR firm to help with the interviews till IIRC Feb.

Thus you must to be fair take anything written, photos etc and ask oneself where did this originate from. I think you will be seeing many lawsuits and I simply don't believe many realize how far reaching these could go.

 

[Allusonz]

If there is one person on this thread that can honestly tell me they have never told an untruth raise your hand please. I know I can't

It does not make me a murderer though

 

[SMK]

Again though this is being stated after she is told that if she does not co-operate that she is facing 30 years, was refused a lawyer even when she asked if she needed one.

Think of it. She asked if she needed one. That there should give people pause. Then she is asked to imagine being there? Then we have no audio/video to back up what PLE states. Does that give no one pause?

YES, I was always extremely bothered that she asked for an attorney, and they told her it would make it worse for her. Apparently legal, but it ought not to be, and Mignini said budget cuts kept them from taping it. :furious:

 

[dgfred]

There is simply no proof that he was let into the cottage. Not even by MK. Does everyone forget that MK was there and if indeed he was let in she could of done it herself? I do though doubt that she did

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.

 

[SMK]

If there is one person on this thread that can honestly tell me they have never told an untruth raise your hand please. I know I can't

It does not make me a murderer though

No, I cannot, either.

 

[SMK]

Sorry, you are not correct.

For example: You drive 2 friends to a bank robbery, they commit a murder while inside (you did not know they would murder someone), you are also charged with murder.

In this case: Whether she knew something bad or not would happen. She did nothing to help and did not call for an ambulance afterwards that might have saved Meredith.

NO, this is different. If I drive friends to a bank robbery, I am already participating in something illegal. Suppose I come and visit you, and you let me into your house. To your horror, I kill someone in your family. Congratulations, fred, you are now a cold blooded killer. ETA: I agree it is wrong not to phone for help, but I assume she was not really there at all....

 

[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 fine as an investigator to have suspicions but you must back those up with evidence. Many LE work on gut feelings but they must follow where the evidence takes them

Ok off to some meetings all have good day!!!

 

[SMK]

It is fine as an investigator to have suspicions but you must back those up with evidence. Many LE work on gut feelings but they must follow where the evidence takes them

Ok off to some meetings all have good day!!!

Likewise.

 

[dgfred]

So if I tell you I had a dream or it seems to be more dream like, much like the Ryan Ferguson case, you are going to rush out and arrest everyone that states something is like a dream without the evidence to back it up?

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.

 

[SMK]

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.

I agree, AK and RS reacted in such a way as to raise red flags. I recall once seeing a true crime docu on A& E. A man had called police to report his elderly mother missing. ( He lived with her, and was about 48 and she, in her 70s). Police found his mother's abandoned car along a highway at night, purse was in the front seat, but had been emptied of money and credit cards. They came to his door and informed him, "We found your mother's car." He immediately turned his head to the right, and looked out toward a certain highway. (where she was found). This alone made him a suspect.(He later confessed).

 

[dgfred]

A statement analysis of AK's Nov 6th statement:


http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

 

[SMK]

I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened. This, I want to confirm, is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible.

Passive language “I have been told” rather than who told her what specifically. But far more telling is the following words within her statement possibly an embedded admission: “I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened”. This is not something an innocent person generally says, even in the form of a question, nor in a reflection of others’ words. Someone not at the crime scene would not frame these words, nor place herself there.

Note that she Wants to confirm, which is different than confirming and is a weak assertion.

She wants to confirm something that to her, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible. This means that, to someone else, it would not be impossible; only to “her”, and only on the condition of being asked a few days ago. This is a strong indication that Amanda Knox is lying.

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":

Interrogations and other verbal communications with a suspect

Interrogators can listen for unconscious confessions and clues. They can ask questions that keep the suspect on the same train on unconscious thought.

Case Examples

In O.J. Simpsons recorded interrogation by the LAPD 13 hours after his ex-wife’s murder his thoughtprints strongly suggested that he was a high risk to run in an effort to escape prosecution. He ran four days later.

Interrogators trained to understand unconscious communication could have noticed the warning and arrested him quietly without incident and prevented chase.

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

I told Raffaele that I didn't have to work and that I could remain at home for the evening. After that I believe we relaxed in his room together, perhaps I checked my email. Perhaps I read or studied or perhaps I made love to Raffaele. In fact, I think I did make love with him.

Deceptive use of qualifiers. Again, see Dr. Eckman for this form of deception (memory). Note "perhaps" (qualifier) she made love "to" Raffaele. Sex is a theme in this case, and should be explored by investigators. First she says she may have made love TO Raffaele, then changes it to WITH him in the same sentence. The change in language would need to be explored.

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 and I know they are important to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much. One thing I do remember is that I took a shower with Raffaele and this might explain how we passed the time.

We can only commit to what the subject commits; here, she took a shower, but wants everything else to be vague; indicating deception.

In truth, I do not remember exactly what day it was, but I do remember that we had a shower and we washed ourselves for a long time. He cleaned my ears, he dried and combed my hair.

"in truth" is used because she now wants to be believed as is the inclusion of minute detail after reporting memory failure. Sometimes liars add extra, minor detail, in the hope of persuading (see Casey Anthony description of "Zanny the Nanny").

The shower details are also interesting as it is used to pass time and sexuality. Sex is a theme in her statement. Think how you might describe your night; even if you had a romantic shower, would you include it? If you felt that you needed to, would you give details about ears? Sex is in her mind WHILE giving this statement and should alert investigators to any sexual motive in the crime. Making love "to" not "with" her boyfriend may show that Amanda Knox strongly wanted to please him. This may speak to motive and just how far she went.

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

 

[Nova]

Again though this is being stated after she is told that if she does not co-operate that she is facing 30 years, was refused a lawyer even when she asked if she needed one.

Think of it. She asked if she needed one. That there should give people pause. Then she is asked to imagine being there? Then we have no audio/video to back up what PLE states. Does that give no one pause?

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.

 

[Nova]

Once again HOW is meeting the person you are accusing of murder, letting them into the cottage, and doing nothing while your cottage mate is getting murdered NOT BEING INVOLVED??? The police have NO IDEA at that moment that you are going to say LATER that it was a dream/flashback/confusion that caused you to accuse the person. Being in the next room IS involvement.

There is no way to dance around the fact that already suspicious police are going to think you are definately involved after you tell them you are... whether a dream or unreal/imagined (or any other excuse).

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!

 

[Nova]

Along the lines of more reasons to want this ruling to hurry up and come: In my trawling other forums, I see two lines of thought, one I agree with, the other I strongly disagree with. (I think I can mention PMF as they make mention of websleuths, and have cited my blog and Facebook and connections with Fisher in the past.)

On one, PMF, they are comparing Amanda to the serial killer out in Cleavland, who raped and strangled 18 women, but claims it was "really out of character" for him. They view Knox as a violent sexual killer, who would reoffend numerous times if granted freedom.
On TJMK, they rightly claim that no pressure from prime ministers, heads of state, presidents; no letters, no petitions, will ever free Knox. She will be freed in open Perugian court, or not at all. This I strongly agree with.

I wish the ruling would come. If Knox was actually wrongfully convicted, as many of us believe, it should be now or never for it coming to light to a judge and jury. If it had to go to the supreme court, that to me would be a very bad sign.

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.

 

[SMK]

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.

Thanks, brother.

 

[Nova]

How is it obviously false at that moment? Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on IMO. So she later claims it is a dream and they should just let her go, or what?

Is it prejudice against RS too, or sheer laziness?

It was obviously false (if anyone among PLE had been looking at the situation objectively rather than just trying to get a pre-ordained answer) because the statement was coerced by a tag-team interrogation in which a text message was deliberately misread and the suspect was ordered to "imagine" the exact opposite of what she said occurred. It was obvious because lies told to her boyfriend were used to get a false statement that was in turn used against AK.

In your view, LE is allowed to lie and coerce testimony but bears no responsibility for the quality of information that results.

I have refrained from opining on the morality of LE lying to suspects; quite honestly, the ramifications of allowing it or not are complex and far-ranging and I'm not sure how I feel. But if LE is going to use these highly manipulative interrogation techniques, then LE should at least bear the burden of having to confirm the responses they get with independent evidence.

Back when journalism was still a profession, journalists were expected to get at least two sources for anything they reported. And the stakes are even higher with LE.

 

[Nova]

Along the lines of more reasons to want this ruling to hurry up and come: In my trawling other forums, I see two lines of thought, one I agree with, the other I strongly disagree with. (I think I can mention PMF as they make mention of websleuths, and have cited my blog and Facebook and connections with Fisher in the past.)

On one, PMF, they are comparing Amanda to the serial killer out in Cleavland, who raped and strangled 18 women, but claims it was "really out of character" for him. They view Knox as a violent sexual killer, who would reoffend numerous times if granted freedom.
On TJMK, they rightly claim that no pressure from prime ministers, heads of state, presidents; no letters, no petitions, will ever free Knox. She will be freed in open Perugian court, or not at all. This I strongly agree with.

I wish the ruling would come. If Knox was actually wrongfully convicted, as many of us believe, it should be now or never for it coming to light to a judge and jury. If it had to go to the supreme court, that to me would be a very bad sign.

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.

 

[Nova]

What about meeting him at the basketball court?

What about letting him into the cottage?

What about doing nothing why your supposed friend was murdered?

What about not calling the police or an ambulance?

What about not helping Meredith after she was stabbed/cut?

I don't understand your problem with involvement whether in the next room or not :waitasec: .

I'm not sure the point of arguing the full implications of a story we all know to be false, but I believe "failure to assist" is a different crime than murder under Italian law.

 

[SMK]

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.

Believe me, I agree, and heartily. It is the same lynch-mob mindset which compared Casey Anthony to Ted Bundy. Just over the top..............