Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #5

[otto]

To clarify, so that those less familiar are not confused, this last part is a grossly inaccurate portrayal by the media of what was actually said.

Was it part of her diary ... in response to her fingerprints on the knife ... or did she actually say this? Raffaele had an interesting story to go along with Meredith's DNA on the same knife.

 

[otto]

Yes, this sounds a lot like those "twisted statements" that was mentioned, as an example of problems in this case. Apparently it's okay to twist statements and concoct rumors when attributed to either AK or RS-- in fact, the more outrageous the alleged statement, the better, because demonizing the defendants is an important goal.

Pay no attention to numerous holes in the case and instead please turn your attention to subjective behavioral and creative interpretations of things the defendants supposedly said or did, particularly statements which have no corroboration, recording, or transcript. Give special thanks to a variety of tabloids--they are trusted allies in this endeavor.

You would have to agree that between Raffaele and Amanda, somehow the most incredulous stories came out in their diaries or mouths about the knife. Each had some sort of explanation.

 

[Malkmus]

Let's dissect it.

True: Amanda Knox could not stick with an alibi.
True: On November 2, she told officials she had spent the night at her boyfriend’s house.
True: Four days later, she changed her story, saying she was at home and Kercher was “having sex.” At some point she stated she had observed Kercher’s former supervisor [Patrick] in the home and he had committed the crime;
True: on November 30 she recanted this statement.
True: In December of 2007 she claimed as she slept, her boyfriend raced over to her home, killed Kercher, snuck back to his place, and put Knox’s fingerprints on the murder weapon as she slept. (didn't she put this in her diary after hearing that her fingerprints were on the knife?)

There are certainly circumstances around this "alibi", but it appears to all be true.

No. The last part is not true.

The actual text of the diary was:

Raffaele and I have used this knife to cook, and it’s impossible that Meredith’s DNA is on the knife because she’s never been to Raffaele’s apartment before. So unless Raffaele decided to get up after I fell asleep, grabbed said knife, went over to my house, used it to kill Meredith, came home, cleaned the blood off, rubbed my fingerprints all over it, put it away, then tucked himself into bed, and then pretended really well the next couple of days, well, I just highly doubt all of that.

The only time Amanda changed her story was when she was interrogated on November 5th, and there is ample reason to believe she was coerced into doing so.

 

[Malkmus]

Are you saying that the machine calibration information was not released? I have read that labs that perform LNC analysis do not want to reveal that information because it is considered to be protected or something like a patent right ... don't know the details.

I'm not talking about some sort of factory preset which is what i think you're talking about. I'm talking about the settings Stefanoni used to reach the results she got. The settings used to get "Too Low" multiple times before getting the desired reading.

 

[Malkmus]

You would have to agree that between Raffaele and Amanda, somehow the most incredulous stories came out in their diaries or mouths about the knife. Each had some sort of explanation.

AFAIK, neither of their stories outside of what the police has claimed they stated behind closed doors without being recorded have turned out to be lies.

 

[otto]

No. The last part is not true.

The actual text of the diary was:



The only time Amanda changed her story was when she was interrogated on November 5th, and there is ample reason to believe she was coerced into doing so.

There is much that Amanda does not remember, but she has provided the safest version of what happened ... she was at Raffaele's and never left. In that version, she also claimed that she received the call from Patrick while she was at Raffaele's apartment, but cell phone records proved that wasn't true. She said that she and Raffaele had a late dinner - around 11 pm ... he did too ... but Raffaele's father phoned after dinner, when the water leaked ... around that time ... and dinner was done at around 8:30 or 8:40. A lie. Amanda and Raffaele both said that they slept until 10 am, but there was computer activity and cell phones turned on to contradict that too. Even the story about Raffaele and Amanda "staying in" does not have truth in the details. The water leak was around 8:30 pm and supposedly water was on the kitchen floor. These two stayed in Raffaele's tiny apartment with water on the tiled kitchen floor, and did nothing about it. The following morning, Amanda was supposedly running through Perugia with a mop (although no one witnessed this) to clean up the water spill ... and the mop was back at Amanda's when the postal police stumbled upon Amanda and Raffaele cuddling by the front door.

The "we stayed in" story is so full of holes, they were convicted.

 

[otto]

I'm not talking about some sort of factory preset which is what i think you're talking about. I'm talking about the settings Stefanoni used to reach the results she got. The settings used to get "Too Low" multiple times before getting the desired reading.

When LNC DNA analysis is done, is it not a series of tests to identify when a valid result can be obtained? Even if there were standards about how small the DNA sample can be prior to testing, new machines and new methods would eventually be capable of obtaining results with smaller samples. The fact that calibrations were changed up until a sample could be identified ... is that a problem? Should we object to the fact that the LNC DNA sample matched Meredith? I know that Amanda's PR team has put together Elizabeth and her friends to critcize test methods and compare them to their lab methods ... but the defense does not seem to protest that it is Meredith's DNA, rather to accept that it is her DNA, but that it got on the knife through contamination.

 

[otto]

AFAIK, neither of their stories outside of what the police has claimed they stated behind closed doors without being recorded have turned out to be lies.

Raffaele's knife story is definitely from his diary, and I thought Amanda's was too, but perhaps she actually said it.

What time did they say they had dinner? Where was Amanda when Patrick phoned? Why didn't anyone see Amanda with the mop? Why are their stories, after turning off their phones, so inconsistent with the facts? They may have matching stories, and matching silly explanations about Meredith's DNA on the knife, but they don't hold water.

 

[saggymoon]

What I want to know is why she pointed the finger at the bar owner

 

[otto]

What I want to know is why she pointed the finger at the bar owner

Of all the stories she could have come up with ... like ... I was at Raffaele's all night, I stepped out for the phone but was otherwise always at Raffaele's. I had a late dinner but otherwise it was done at 8:30 before I had to go to work. What could she have said ... I wasn't there? That would have worked. She was questioned for 2 hours before pointing fingers. Why didn't she say that she had no idea why she screwed up about where she was when she received the phone call from Patrick (about not needing to go to work), and no idea why she didn't know when they had dinner, and no idea about being intimate and ... oh yes ... "I don't remember". That was eventually her answer to everything. "I don't remember". That phrase was so common for Amanda, that the laywers eventually phrased their questions as "do you remember ... when your mother called you"? There were even problems with that ... "I don't remember". Amanda doesn't remember ... after pointing the finger at the bar owner.

 

[saggymoon]

Otto I know very little about this case, I will have to do a lot of reading and research before coming back, but that always stuck in my craw, presumably it's a fact and has never been denied by ak ?

 

[otto]

My understanding is that Amanda received a text from Patrick, after she left Raffaele's apartment - while she was in the square or palaza on her way to work, that she didn't have to go to work. She apparently went back to Raffaele's apartment or he met her in the square and they both turned off their phones. When the police questioned her, they focused on the text message from Patrick. I believe her first story was that she received the message while she was at Raffaele's apartment. Cell towers proved that wrong. There is some question about whether the message from Patrick was erased, and the meaning of her reply. She said "see you later", and I seem to remember her saying that she didn't remember if she erased the text. That text became a point of interest to police because Amanda gave the wrong location for receiving the text ... rather than on her way to work. Then she gave incorrect information about the evening ... placing dinner late in the evening rather than before going to work ... which appeared like an attempt to create a false alibi for much later in the evening. When police attempted to get more information about the text ... by the sounds of it ... Amanda accused Patrick of murdering Meredith. It is possible that police knew that Patrick's phone was pinging off a tower close to the basketball plaza and pressed the issue of the text message during questioning and what "see you later" meant. That seems to be the basis of Amanda accusing Patrick. Coincidentally, Patrick's phone appeared in the area around the time of the murder (a little early, actually). Why Amanda needed only 2 hours to point the finger and claim that she was afraid of Patrick, rather than stick to her "true" story that she was at Raffaele's, is a mystery ... but it appears as though she found it a convenient explanation for what happened on the night of the murder. Since she knew that he window had been broken, I have to wonder how she put that together ... but then Amanda "doesn't remember".

It did take her a couple of weeks to remember that Patrick wasn't involved.

 

[Nova]

True, what happens in California and NewYork do not make a trend, nor do they set international standards. In 2008, LNC DNA was accepted and considered "robust" and
"fit for purpose" in the UK.

Was Amanda high? Did she admit using so many drugs mixed with alcohol that she had absolutely no recollection of many events on the night that Meredith was murdered? Was her recollection of eating dinner late accurate? Do Amanda and Raffaele have alibis for the night in question? It makes no sense that Raffaele cannot say whether Amanda was at his apartment during the night, and it makes no sense that Amanda doesn't know what she did that night. Does it make sense that she was running around with a knife? No. It also doesn't make sense that she was so out of it she doesn't remember whether she was intimate with Raffaele.

We have to keep in mind that this was such a drug fueled night that both Amanda and Raffaele have vowed that they will never again use drugs. We are not discussing the actions of rational, sober people, but rather the actions of two people that were so high on "pot" that their memories were wiped clean.

We all know alcohol and other drugs can affect memory. In fact, most of us can attest to the fact from personal experience.

(Side note: I don't understand the big deal made out of RS saying he can't be certain AK was in his apartment all night. I assume he slept; how is he to know what happened while he was asleep? My husband was in bed when I retired last night and he was in bed when I woke up; I can't swear to what he did or didn't do in between.)

But I know of no case where alcohol or drugs inspired anyone to run around town with a footlong kitchen knife; if such a case exists, however, I guarantee you the impaired person cut herself with the knife.

IMO, the argument that crazy or chemically impaired people "do things for no reason" has gotten more innocent people convicted than any other train of thought. Even crazy or drunk people have reasons for what they do; crazy reasons, but reasons nonetheless.

Apparently, the jury and judges didn't care that the evidence in this case makes no sense. But I care.

 

[Nova]

What can be learned about the DNA on the knife blade by disassembling the handle of the knife?

I don't know and they don't know. That's the point. Why should they take a chance they'll get an unpleasant surprise? So they object to taking the knife apart. SOP.

 

[Nova]

"Amanda Knox could not stick with an alibi. On November 2, she told officials she had spent the night at her boyfriend’s house. Four days later, she changed her story, saying she was at home and Kercher was “having sex.” At some point she stated she had observed Kercher’s former supervisor [Patrick] in the home and he had committed the crime; on November 30 she recanted this statement. In December of 2007 she claimed as she slept, her boyfriend raced over to her home, killed Kercher, snuck back to his place, and put Knox’s fingerprints on the murder weapon as she slept.

Perhaps she does not understand, because of her youth, or arrogance, or both, anything she writes can be seized as evidence. But it has, and her diary contains excerpts such as, "I have received letters from fellow inmates and admirers telling me that I am hot and they want to have sex with me." She also writes of, “smoking a lot of pot.”

Ref: http://www.examiner.com/true-crime-in-nashville/amanda-knox-guilty-or-not-guilty#ixzz1C1KS1Fsb

"She [Amanda's mother] admits being surprised to learn that her daughter was smoking marijuana on the night Meredith Kercher died"

Ref: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...a-Knox-the-shy-former-Jesuit-school-girl.html

What is the point of this post?

We all know AK made false statements under the pressure of interrogation and falsely implicated PL.

We all know she later speculated that RS could have left the apartment and committed the murder while she slept. Just as RS said he couldn't know what AK was doing while he slept. And I say I can't know what my husband does while I sleep.

AK smoked pot, just like 1 out of every 2 American college students.

http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/medi...moking.Marijuana.Is.A.Lifestyle-1656051.shtml


Some people wrote her a letters and said she was hot. She was flattered, just like 2 out of every 2 American college students.

I'm seriously asking what your point is here, otto...

 

[Nova]

There were no "kids" involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. The three convicted murderers were stoned, and that drug use was used as an excuse for memory failure on the night that Meredith was murdered. If they were too stoned to remember whether they were intimate, or where they were, it's not much of a stretch to believe they were too stoned to make rational decisions. Raffaele habitually carried a knife. Is it a stretch to believe that Amanda decided to carry one too?

Well, let me put it another way: if they were so stoned they decided to carry a footlong kitchen knife around town with them, they were certainly too stoned to pull off the elaborate staging they are accused of doing a few hours later.

 

[Nova]

Is the prosecution "so against" testing? I haven't read any of the debate about the handle being disassembled. On the surface, it seems that the handle has nothing to do with the DNA on the blade ... grounds for objection.

Now you're thinking like a trial attorney: I'm sure you are right that the prosecution's objection was automatic. He'd be a fool to risk the discovery of any new evidence which might prove an unpleasant surprise.

 

[otto]

We all know alcohol and other drugs can affect memory. In fact, most of us can attest to the fact from personal experience.

(Side note: I don't understand the big deal made out RS saying he can't be certain AK was in his apartment all night. I assume he slept; how is he to know what happened while he was asleep? My husband was in bed when I retired last night and he was in bed when I woke up; I can't swear to what he did or didn't do in between.)

But I know of no case where alcohol or drugs inspired anyone to run around town with a footlong kitchen knife; if such a case exists, however, I guarantee you the impaired person cut herself with the knife.

IMO, the argument that crazy or chemically impaired people "do things for no reason" has gotten more innocent people convicted than any other train of thought. Even crazy or drunk people have reasons for what they do; crazy reasons, but reasons nonetheless.

Apparently, the jury and judges didn't care that the evidence in this case makes no sense. But I care.

So the drugs impacted her memory so much that she didn't know what she did ... but we are to believe she wasn't so messed up as to decide that if Raffaele is carrying a knife, she too will carry a knife? Raffaele had a knife strapped to him when he was arrested ... he had a lot of different knives, and often carried more than one. Given his affection for knives, I doubt he would give them out to women ... even if she had kind of moved into his apartment. If Amanda wanted a knife, I think she had to take one out of the kitchen. Drugged up people do have "crazy reasons" for doing things.

If Raffaele cannot verify that Amanda was with him through the night, then she has no alibi.

Does murder ever make sense? We have familiar motives of sex and money, but we have also read about people that want to kill to see what it feels like. Does the stoned out of her mind woman seem like a good candidate for that sort of motive?

 

[Nova]

You would have to agree that between Raffaele and Amanda, somehow the most incredulous stories came out in their diaries or mouths about the knife. Each had some sort of explanation.

Yes, but in each case they are responding to "facts" they have been told and are attempting to explain those facts. Closer examination shows the facts themselves to be questionable.

So in a very real sense, they are speculating based on false premises, yet their speculation is taken out of context and held to an objective standard of truth.

The slang expression, "garbage in, garbage out" comes to mind.

 

[Nova]

There is much that Amanda does not remember, but she has provided the safest version of what happened ... she was at Raffaele's and never left. In that version, she also claimed that she received the call from Patrick while she was at Raffaele's apartment, but cell phone records proved that wasn't true. She said that she and Raffaele had a late dinner - around 11 pm ... he did too ... but Raffaele's father phoned after dinner, when the water leaked ... around that time ... and dinner was done at around 8:30 or 8:40. A lie. Amanda and Raffaele both said that they slept until 10 am, but there was computer activity and cell phones turned on to contradict that too. Even the story about Raffaele and Amanda "staying in" does not have truth in the details. The water leak was around 8:30 pm and supposedly water was on the kitchen floor. These two stayed in Raffaele's tiny apartment with water on the tiled kitchen floor, and did nothing about it. The following morning, Amanda was supposedly running through Perugia with a mop (although no one witnessed this) to clean up the water spill ... and the mop was back at Amanda's when the postal police stumbled upon Amanda and Raffaele cuddling by the front door.

The "we stayed in" story is so full of holes, they were convicted.

Would you like to explain to me how we know the dinner time of 11 is a lie?

I've read the Court Report, but it makes some very large and unsupported assumptions to reach the conclusion that dinner was at 8:30 pm.

Although I recommend it, people don't always cook their entire dinner and then eat it immediately (which is one thing the Court assumed).