CBS of course. The Daily Beast is one of the few that has maintained some objectivity. Most US media didn't get much further then 'how is Amanda doing?' and 'how is the family holding up?'. None has ever questioned Amanda's innocence. Never the question 'could she have done it?'. All just following the PR media spin campaign setup by the Knox/Mellas family. Whatever sells best I suppose. JMO.
Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #21
- Thread starter Salem
- Start date
-
KY-Laken Snelling, 21, arrested after giving birth and infant was found in closet- Latest: LittleSeaTree
- Status
This is what still bugs me. I continually hear people say they know these guys are guilty because:
1. Raffaelle called the police after the police arrived (not true)
2. Amanda and Raf knew information about the murder they shouldn't have known (not true). Also, they were TOLD information by their friends in the car about what they saw in the murder room. Amanda related that Meredith's body was found in a cupboard (it wasn't). So Amanda's special knowledge was incorrect, and exactly the same as the information she recieved from her friends.
3. She bought bleach (No proof of bleach. Even if there WAS... there was no bleach used to clean up the cottage, so why would it matter anyway?)
4. Evidence of bleach clean up at the cottage (There isn't any. This would be especially noticeable by the smearing of footprints, which isn't the case at all. There was no clean-up).
5. Evidence that the murder was planned because of the suspicious fact that they both turned their cell phones off right before the murder. (Murder couldn't have been planned because Amanda was supposed to work that night, and Raffaelle was supposed to take someone to the train station. They turned off their phones right after both these plans were cancelled. Their explanation was that they didn't want any unexpected phone calls asking them to do anything. They wanted the night to themselves. Therefore, the murder had to be spontaneous, if it was committed by them.)
6. The burglary was impossible to commit the way it was commited, therefore it had to be staged. (It was not impossible. It may have been less likely, but Rudy had scaled a similair height before. He had broken a window before, and he had stolen things before. In addition it's known for a fact that he went through Meredith's purse that night, and he knew where she hid her money in her bedroom... strong implications that he did in fact rob her, not that Amanda and Raffaelle staged a robbery.)
7. They must have committed the murder because they were seen by an eyewitness that night nearby. (If this was true, the eyewitness would have had to see them either right after the murder... when they should have been covered in blood, or an instant before the murder, when they should have been working themselves into a frenzy to commit it. This eyewitness actually undermines any logical explanation of them committing the murder. In addition, we all know that this eyewitness is a homeless heroin addict whose original testimony stated there were buses that night when there were none, and whose appeal testimony flat out contradicted itself).
8) Amanda and Raffaelle testified under oath lots of strange explanations of how the knife could have had their DNA on it. (They wrote a lot of strange explanations in their diary, they did not present these explanations to the court.)
9) The bathroom was covered in blood. (It was not. It did not look like a house of horrors.)
10) Amanda's handprints, Raffaelle's footprints were found in the murder room. (Not true. The police stated Raffaelle's shoeprint was i Meredith's room. This shoeprint had a slightly off-centered pattern that was the same as the pattern in the hallway. In fact, it is Rudy Guede's shoe. Unless you think Raffaelle had the poor luck to wear a shoe with an almost identical tread pattern.)
11) The bare bloody footprint on the bathmat is 100% Raffaelle's. (Footprint evidence is not supposed to be used to include someone. It is supposed to be used only to exclude someone. It also begs the explanation of how they could have overlooked this footprint in their supposed clean-up. Logically, one would think this footprint is Rudys).
Now, if you want to believe they are guilty because of 1) The contested DNA evidence on the bra clasp and knife. 2) The luminol footprints and the bloody bathmat print. 3) The DNA evidence of Amanda in the bathroom she and Meredith shared. 4) The implausibility of the way the burglary was commited. 5) Amanda's accusation that Lumamba did it. 6) Raffaelle abandoning Amanda as her alibi for a period of 16 hours. 7) Amanda's sexual history. 8) Amanda not attending the memorial of Meredith, turning a cartwheel, giggling, sticking out her tongue, kissing her boyfriend, and any other behaviour you found inappropriate. 9) Amanda and Raffaelle's self-serving diary entries. 10) The weird bathroom boogie story. 11) the fact that she would shower in that cottage at all, and not realize something was up. 12) The fact that they were leaving so late to go to Gubbio that day.
All those I understand. Beyond the ones I have listed, I really know of no other reasons to find them guilty.
1. Raffaelle called the police after the police arrived (not true)
2. Amanda and Raf knew information about the murder they shouldn't have known (not true). Also, they were TOLD information by their friends in the car about what they saw in the murder room. Amanda related that Meredith's body was found in a cupboard (it wasn't). So Amanda's special knowledge was incorrect, and exactly the same as the information she recieved from her friends.
3. She bought bleach (No proof of bleach. Even if there WAS... there was no bleach used to clean up the cottage, so why would it matter anyway?)
4. Evidence of bleach clean up at the cottage (There isn't any. This would be especially noticeable by the smearing of footprints, which isn't the case at all. There was no clean-up).
5. Evidence that the murder was planned because of the suspicious fact that they both turned their cell phones off right before the murder. (Murder couldn't have been planned because Amanda was supposed to work that night, and Raffaelle was supposed to take someone to the train station. They turned off their phones right after both these plans were cancelled. Their explanation was that they didn't want any unexpected phone calls asking them to do anything. They wanted the night to themselves. Therefore, the murder had to be spontaneous, if it was committed by them.)
6. The burglary was impossible to commit the way it was commited, therefore it had to be staged. (It was not impossible. It may have been less likely, but Rudy had scaled a similair height before. He had broken a window before, and he had stolen things before. In addition it's known for a fact that he went through Meredith's purse that night, and he knew where she hid her money in her bedroom... strong implications that he did in fact rob her, not that Amanda and Raffaelle staged a robbery.)
7. They must have committed the murder because they were seen by an eyewitness that night nearby. (If this was true, the eyewitness would have had to see them either right after the murder... when they should have been covered in blood, or an instant before the murder, when they should have been working themselves into a frenzy to commit it. This eyewitness actually undermines any logical explanation of them committing the murder. In addition, we all know that this eyewitness is a homeless heroin addict whose original testimony stated there were buses that night when there were none, and whose appeal testimony flat out contradicted itself).
8) Amanda and Raffaelle testified under oath lots of strange explanations of how the knife could have had their DNA on it. (They wrote a lot of strange explanations in their diary, they did not present these explanations to the court.)
9) The bathroom was covered in blood. (It was not. It did not look like a house of horrors.)
10) Amanda's handprints, Raffaelle's footprints were found in the murder room. (Not true. The police stated Raffaelle's shoeprint was i Meredith's room. This shoeprint had a slightly off-centered pattern that was the same as the pattern in the hallway. In fact, it is Rudy Guede's shoe. Unless you think Raffaelle had the poor luck to wear a shoe with an almost identical tread pattern.)
11) The bare bloody footprint on the bathmat is 100% Raffaelle's. (Footprint evidence is not supposed to be used to include someone. It is supposed to be used only to exclude someone. It also begs the explanation of how they could have overlooked this footprint in their supposed clean-up. Logically, one would think this footprint is Rudys).
Now, if you want to believe they are guilty because of 1) The contested DNA evidence on the bra clasp and knife. 2) The luminol footprints and the bloody bathmat print. 3) The DNA evidence of Amanda in the bathroom she and Meredith shared. 4) The implausibility of the way the burglary was commited. 5) Amanda's accusation that Lumamba did it. 6) Raffaelle abandoning Amanda as her alibi for a period of 16 hours. 7) Amanda's sexual history. 8) Amanda not attending the memorial of Meredith, turning a cartwheel, giggling, sticking out her tongue, kissing her boyfriend, and any other behaviour you found inappropriate. 9) Amanda and Raffaelle's self-serving diary entries. 10) The weird bathroom boogie story. 11) the fact that she would shower in that cottage at all, and not realize something was up. 12) The fact that they were leaving so late to go to Gubbio that day.
All those I understand. Beyond the ones I have listed, I really know of no other reasons to find them guilty.
Amanda already confessed after about 2 hours of questioning. The reason was that her boyfriend dropped her alibi after just half an hour of questioning. It was all about how she would babble herself out of that situation. She got stuck. So she accused her boss just to buy some time.
If it is a blatant lie, what are the ramifications?? I just cannot imagine any journalist, or even a free-lance blogger, out and out LYING at such a critical moment in the wrap-up of the appeal. :maddening:
This is fair. As long as you are aware that the police thought Lumamba was the accomplice when they brought Amanda in for questioning, and wanted her to name him as the murderer, then at least your decision is based on the facts. (However, the previous poster who corrected you that it was 14 hours is wrong. The interrogation was more like 2-3 hours that night. Amanda states that she had been questioned multiple hours over several days, was operating on serious sleep deprivation, and that she was intimidated and scared when the police suddenly seemed to turn on her that night. She states that they asked her to "imagine" scenarios, and that they told her that they knew she was lying, that she was blocking a memory out, etc. etc.)
Oldsoul2
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,028
- Reaction score
- 1
Funny...not really, that in the Anthony case a murderer goes free based on circumstancial evidence, or lack of and here innocent people stay in prison based on the same lack of circumstancial evidence yet are proclaimed guilty...I think there is some revamping to do in the court systems all accross the world. I also believe strongly that the Italian justice system is based on alot of hot heads who need to point fingers quickly to ease the public and their view on Italian justice that effects their own tourism. IMO
Apparently false confessions are not as rare as one would think. I agree I'd imagine in a situation like that I would never, ever confess to something I hadn't done, but I've never been in an intense interrogation either. I thought the Douglas Preston (the co-author of Monster of Florence) interview re: being interrogated by Mignini and accused of being involved in a murder/satanic cult was really interesting. He said it was a horrible situation, very intense, and that he was terrified. Shoot, I guess I need a link to this...I'll go look...
Here's a link re: Douglas Preston's situation:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/an-innocent-abroad/
marlame
Member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2008
- Messages
- 416
- Reaction score
- 2
I know it seems unreal but we are talking about a scared young girl, in a foreign country, and not able to communicate effectively due to a language barrier. Add that you have police and a prosecutor who have already formed an idea of a what happened based upon their "impression" of what happened and not on conclusive eveidence.
The police questioned AK and RS a number of times over the course of 5 days. They were consistent in their denail of any involvement. It wan't until the police and the prosecutor utilized interrogation techniques (typically reserved for interrogating terrorist), that after 14+ hours they had their confession. They did not stop until they had Amanda confessing to "their" version of what they imagined happened. By that time even Amanda was confused as to what happened.
As I stated in an earlier post...severe interrogation techniques are often used to force a confession: (all of which were used on Amanda Knox)
1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs prisoner and shakes him.
2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.
3. Exhaustion, sleep deprivation, withholding food/water
4. Threats, insults, and inhumane treatment
Unfortunately, this type of interrogation produces unreliable results because it can induce someone to say whatever he/she thinks the interrogator wants to hear. This is what is known as a "coerced confession". (Similar to the West Memphis Three?)
I had a new understanding of what happened after hearing former FBI investigator Steve Moore say, "I know these type of techniques and believe me if they are used properly you could even get the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini to admit to murder - I'm just surprised it took 14 hours."
This whole case is shocking...:sick:
I remember that, it makes me go Hmmmmm.......
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 75
- Reaction score
- 0
Does anyone know of a good factual website to read up on this case, or a reliable timeline? Obviously I've heard about it over the years, but haven't followed closely and it seems like there is a lot of confusing misinformation out there.
Thanks!
Thanks!
I also thought it seemed like AK was so trusting and so naive that she believed what the police were telling here during the interrogation--that RS had turned on her and that they had "hard evidence" that she was there during the murder. It seemed like she started to doubt herself and didn't really think they'd just be saying those things to get her to implicate herself. Then she was just completely confused, thinking well if the police are saying that's true could I have totally blocked something out??
I thought she was guilty at first. Then I began to read. She is strange to me and must have been very odd to Italians. Her demeanor was apathetic. Cartwheels in the police station - no hysteria. Whoi acts like that when their roommate is found dead? But, I think she may have been a spoiled girl with an emotionless nature that is more normal culturally in the U.S. than it is in Southern Europe.
And her strangeness is not enough for me to feel she's guilty.
The minute I hear the words "satanic" or hear that a woman's sex life is being highlighted, I start to become suspicious. The prosecutor in the case also has serious problems. What was presented as the theory of the murder was fantastical and ridiculous and was not based on any credible evidence, IMO.
The two things besides the above that caused me to begin to change my mind include the lack of physical evidence pointing to Sollecito and Knox, while physical evidence remains for Guede. That seems impossible. Also, what on earth would be the motive for this young couple to meet up with an immigrant they did not know and act out a diabolical sex torture murder? It would make more sense to me if Guede was not involved at all.
Also, where is the evidence that either of the two ever exhibited signs of sociopathy or criminal mindedness prior to that? Sure, there is a first time for everything but what reason would a young, Catholic Italian college student have for engaging in a bizarre torture murder or sadistic sex games to begin with?
Usually in such cases (think Karla Homolka/Paul Bernardo), it is a man, with sadistic proclivities, who carefully grooms his partner, who is willing to do anything for him, over a long period of time. But Knox had met Sollecito only one week prior to the murder! One week! And they decide after one week to meet up with a man neither knew and kill an innocent girl? After one week they recognize, verbalize and act on previously hidden sadistic tendencies they both share? That makes no sense.
That's what began to change my mind.
And her strangeness is not enough for me to feel she's guilty.
The minute I hear the words "satanic" or hear that a woman's sex life is being highlighted, I start to become suspicious. The prosecutor in the case also has serious problems. What was presented as the theory of the murder was fantastical and ridiculous and was not based on any credible evidence, IMO.
The two things besides the above that caused me to begin to change my mind include the lack of physical evidence pointing to Sollecito and Knox, while physical evidence remains for Guede. That seems impossible. Also, what on earth would be the motive for this young couple to meet up with an immigrant they did not know and act out a diabolical sex torture murder? It would make more sense to me if Guede was not involved at all.
Also, where is the evidence that either of the two ever exhibited signs of sociopathy or criminal mindedness prior to that? Sure, there is a first time for everything but what reason would a young, Catholic Italian college student have for engaging in a bizarre torture murder or sadistic sex games to begin with?
Usually in such cases (think Karla Homolka/Paul Bernardo), it is a man, with sadistic proclivities, who carefully grooms his partner, who is willing to do anything for him, over a long period of time. But Knox had met Sollecito only one week prior to the murder! One week! And they decide after one week to meet up with a man neither knew and kill an innocent girl? After one week they recognize, verbalize and act on previously hidden sadistic tendencies they both share? That makes no sense.
That's what began to change my mind.
dog.gone.cute
Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 15,653
- Reaction score
- 1,949
snipped for space and bbm:
MOO ... IMO, Amanda does NOT come across like a "scared young girl" ...
From various accounts, she is very "outgoing" ...
As to foreign country, that was HER choice ... when you go to another country, you have to live with "their" rules ... and she should have asked for an interpretator from the very first minute she was brought in ...
And as to the "language barrier" ... I recall reading somewhere (don't have link handy), that AK was studying "foreign languages" ...
As always, my own opinion ...
I know many will NOT agree with me ... so I guess we can "agree" to "disagree" ...
:seeya:
I agree there seems to be a ton of misinformation out there. If you just took all these news articles on face value, I can see how someone would come to the conclusion that maybe they're guilty. Even now after the appeals process and the refuted evidence, I've seen mainstream media news articles summarizing the case in ways that are misleading. Misleading because they don't give the full analysis. (e.g. saying that mixed blood of meredith and amanda was found in multiple places etc...when really it was mixed DNA, not necessarily mixed blood; mixed DNA would be easily explainable given they shared a bathroom, mixed blood would be more difficult to explain IMO)
gibby207
Pooh just is.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2008
- Messages
- 6,799
- Reaction score
- 13
I know I don't post on this forum very often, if ever, because it does get intense. That said, I'm from WA and have watched the case intensely, and I'm convinced that AK and RS are innocent. I hoping for her release today, although I'm not counting on it.
2goldfish
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Messages
- 3,979
- Reaction score
- 52
bolds by me
one: this is also what I think. I think knox is somewhat unlikable. this does not make her a murderer or an accomplice to a murder. hubby and I've been going over this case today as he isnt too familiar, we agreed she would never be a friend of ours...but this is not a reason to jail her unfairly which we think is what happened.
second bold: this is why I could never come off the fence about their guilt maybe even if there was stronger forensic - who meets someone and less than two weeks later they get together and murder someone? that just is so not logical.
there would have to be strong forensic evidence IMO to ever shake me off the feeling that there is no way they would do this together, only knowing each other a week or two.
There is no truely objective one. There are several, both for and against. You kind of have to read both sides in order to pull out facts and compare and contrast. Makes it very time consuming.
Or you could just read here. Our sleuths have argued every point over and over and done a really good job of it
Salem
marlame
Member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2008
- Messages
- 416
- Reaction score
- 2
Amanda testified, denied by prosecutors, that she underwent a hostile interrogation of 14 hours, that she was struck and yelled at, denied food and water, and caused to make incriminating statements. Unfortunately, (or conveniently) there is no video or audio tape recording to prove this. Amanda was initially interviewed in Italian, although she had only been studying the language for two months, without an attorney present and without being recorded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#cite_note-Grinberg_p3-36
For arguments sake lets just say...Amanda Knox was repeatedly questioned by police in the days following the murder. On November 5th and into the early hours of November 6th, 2007, Amanda endured a long aggressive interrogation.
Per Amanda she stated she had been hit repeatedly on the back of the head and called a stupid liar. She was told that she was going to prison for 30 years. She was told that they had proof that she was at the crime scene at the time of the murder. She was told that her boss, Patrick Lumumba was the man that attacked Meredith. She didn't give Patrick's name to the police. His name was suggested to her. She was told to imagine that he committed the crime. All of this equates to a "coerced confession".
Let's not forget the NEXT day Amanda hand wrote a letter explaining the interrogation. Amanda wrote: "In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make it 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."
*It should be noted that the interrogation of Amanda Knox was ruled illegal and inadmissible.
- Status
Similar threads
Staff online
-
BreezyflavorModerator -
FraizeAdministrator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 132
- Guests online
- 3,409
- Total visitors
- 3,541