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

[Malkmus]

I think most people that followed this case gave Amanda and Raffaele the benefit of the doubt at the outset. This wasn't a case where one looked at the accused and assumed they were guilty. It's pretty much a situation where they dug their own grave ... and now they lie in it.

Did they dig their own grave with all the false information put out there by the press? The mistranslation of the diary which was just clarified for you yesterday for example, the Luminol-coated bathroom made to look like a blood-spattered bathroom, Amanda being caught on CCTV which wasn't actually her, her sweatshirt missing and assumed to be part of the murder then found folded on her bed, the police misidentifying Rudy's bloody shoeprints for Raf's shoes, and many many more instances...

 

[Malkmus]

The problem with Amanda being confused and not remembering when she ate is that she ate before she prepared to go to work. It seems a little bit of a stretch to believe that she ate before she left for work, and then forgot that she ate before she left for work. Certainly she knew when she left for work ... as that is a fixed time. Why couldn't she work backwards and figure out that if she left for work around 8:45 and she at before she left, then she ate dinner around 8:20?

How many people forget that they ate before they went to work?

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. Amanda didn't go to work that night.

 

[otto]

Thanks, but I still don't see much time between their "drug-crazed mania" and the carefully contrived staging. Particularly not if they were so stoned they were running around with a kitchen knife.

Murder is probably a very sobering experience.

 

[Malkmus]

Almost everything AK has told, and to some extent RS too has to be treated to this type of twisting to explain away why it is so incriminating. Some things might be possible, but not just about everything IMO.

Well, personally, I think you've got it backwards. I see a lot of "twisting" to make the most common of human mistakes somehow indicative of guilt. How did getting what time they ate wrong help her case? The only thing that would have helped them is if Raf's father had called later around 10:00, establishing that they were still home. It's not their fault that didn't happen.

 

[otto]

Only both claim they needed the mop from the cottage to clean it up.

Neither claimed to have had to dodge the water spill while cooking later.

Making excuses for lies seem like it is a tuff job... :innocent:

It's absolutely unbelievable that two seemingly intelligent adults would cook dinner, have water leak all over the kitchen floor, and then leave it there until the following day ... approximately 12-16 hours later. It's an obvious safety hazard, and it can damage property. Yet, this is the story ... and the mop is something that both Amanda and Raffaele wanted to talk about ... that Amanda brought the mop to Raffaele's apt. after having her shower ... and Iguess that explained why it was wet when police arrived.

 

[otto]

Well, personally, I think you've got it backwards. I see a lot of "twisting" to make the most common of human mistakes somehow indicative of guilt. How did getting what time they ate wrong help her case? The only thing that would have helped them is if Raf's father had called later around 10:00, establishing that they were still home. It's not their fault that didn't happen.

Giving a false time for the dinner is perceived as trying to create an alibi for later in the evening ... a time which is now unaccounted for.

Raffaele's father did call again ... and again ... except Raffaele had turned off his phone.

 

[otto]

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. Amanda didn't go to work that night.

The text from Patrick was received when Amanda was away from Raffaele's apt. and when she was on her way to work. After receiving the text, she got together with Raffaele again, and they turned off their phones.

 

[otto]

Did they dig their own grave with all the false information put out there by the press? The mistranslation of the diary which was just clarified for you yesterday for example, the Luminol-coated bathroom made to look like a blood-spattered bathroom, Amanda being caught on CCTV which wasn't actually her, her sweatshirt missing and assumed to be part of the murder then found folded on her bed, the police misidentifying Rudy's bloody shoeprints for Raf's shoes, and many many more instances...

The press didn't create false information. Amanda is a known liar, and her lies are what resulted in police looking at her more closely. The evidence is what convicted her.

 

[Malkmus]

The press didn't create false information.(snip)

Wait, did you just deny that the list of false information put out there by the press ever happened? Perhaps you could elaborate.

 

[dgfred]

Did they dig their own grave with all the false information put out there by the press? The mistranslation of the diary which was just clarified for you yesterday for example, the Luminol-coated bathroom made to look like a blood-spattered bathroom, Amanda being caught on CCTV which wasn't actually her, her sweatshirt missing and assumed to be part of the murder then found folded on her bed, the police misidentifying Rudy's bloody shoeprints for Raf's shoes, and many many more instances...

There is no 'mistranslation' of the diary, except by pro-innocent posters trying to excuse it away.

Nobody with any smarts believed that bathroom was covered in pink blood.

On the CCTV, who the person is can not be seen. That was also obvious.

Mistakes were made by LE (like in most cases), then cleared up. I see no problem with that.

I would bet we can find many more instances of AK/RS 'grave digging' than what has been noted from the LE side.

 

[Malkmus]

The text from Patrick was received when Amanda was away from Raffaele's apt. and when she was on her way to work. After receiving the text, she got together with Raffaele again, and they turned off their phones.

Otto, I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but this is incorrect. Amanda's shift was 10PM to 2AM. It's impossible that she was on her way to work an hour and a half early.

 

[otto]

Wait, did you just deny that the list of false information put out there by the press ever happened? Perhaps you could elaborate.

I have followed the trial, trial testimony, and court documents ... not gossip. I have no idea what sort of gossip the media and Amanda's PR rep put out there, and don't see it as relevant. It's about as relevant as Douglas Preston's experience after injecting himself into a murder investigation ... not relevant.

Where do you see media coverage and Amanda's PR team fitting into a murder trial?

 

[dgfred]

It's absolutely unbelievable that two seemingly intelligent adults would cook dinner, have water leak all over the kitchen floor, and then leave it there until the following day ... approximately 12-16 hours later. It's an obvious safety hazard, and it can damage property. Yet, this is the story ... and the mop is something that both Amanda and Raffaele wanted to talk about ... that Amanda brought the mop to Raffaele's apt. after having her shower ... and Iguess that explained why it was wet when police arrived.

Yes, and also unbelievable that some try to excuse it away as the time is mis-remembered or an accidental 'lie'.

 

[Malkmus]

There is no 'mistranslation' of the diary, except by pro-innocent posters trying to excuse it away.

Clearly you missed yesterday's discussion where Otto was quoting a mistranslation of Amanda's English diary. I think you've mistaken what I'm talking about for Raf's diary.

Nobody with any smarts believed that bathroom was covered in pink blood.

I beg to differ. I don't want to spend the time looking for them, but if I have to I will dig up posts by people who actually thought that was true (even on here IIRC)

On the CCTV, who the person is can not be seen. That was also obvious.

That doesn't change the fact that the press put out articles titles "Amanda Knox caught on CCTV entering cottage".

Mistakes were made by LE (like in most cases), then cleared up. I see no problem with that.

Really? Can you cite some of the retractions they made, particularly in the press?

I would bet we can find many more instances of AK/RS 'grave digging' than what has been noted from the LE side.

Again, I beg to differ. I just made a partial list of the misinformation which helped "dig their graves". So far the only mistakes they made were on the night of November 5th.

 

[Malkmus]

I have followed the trial, trial testimony, and court documents ... not gossip. I have no idea what sort of gossip the media and Amanda's PR rep put out there, and don't see it as relevant. It's about as relevant as Douglas Preston's experience after injecting himself into a murder investigation ... not relevant.

Where do you see media coverage and Amanda's PR team fitting into a murder trial?

Otto, this seems like you're backtracking. I listed a bunch of errors reported by the press and you responded saying the press "never created false information". Now you're saying that you never bought into any of that false information. However, just yesterday you cited false information put out by the press where they had mistranslated Amanda's diary to the point where it had a completely different meaning.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I remain amazed that anyone can tell with any accuracy what statements (beyond what AK or RS wrote) were actually made. In fact, I think accuracy is not intact at all. I read different versions of what AK or RS allegedly said and each differs slightly, enough of a difference that I'm sure the real statements, esp. with context, is something different than what is being restated as if it is the gospel.

Knowing how bad many (if not most) people are at remembering exact words, phrases, statements without some kind of word-for-word transcript or recording, I'm now 99% sure that what I've been told AK and RS said before, during, and after the investigation is not actually what they said and certainly not what they meant, because important context is missing.

Reading the debate back 'n forth on the threads is now pushing me more towards the innocent line. Not merely just 'not guilty,' where I was treading, but I'm actually now considering the possibility that RS and AK were falsely accused and there was a conspiracy to convict them.

 

[dgfred]

Clearly you missed yesterday's discussion where Otto was quoting a mistranslation of Amanda's English diary. I think you've mistaken what I'm talking about for Raf's diary.

I beg to differ. I don't want to spend the time looking for them, but if I have to I will dig up posts by people who actually thought that was true (even on here IIRC)

That doesn't change the fact that the press put out articles titles "Amanda Knox caught on CCTV entering cottage".

Really? Can you cite some of the retractions they made, particularly in the press?

Again, I beg to differ. I just made a partial list of the misinformation which helped "dig their graves". So far the only mistakes they made were on the night of November 5th.

*I must be thinking of where you claimed he was not lying. That is a mistranslation if there ever was one.

I said 'nobody with any smarts'. I didn't say anyone that does mental gymnastics to explain away/against evidence.

What the press 'puts out' is not relevant to what the Judges/jurors decided IMO.

Here's three:
*Shoe prints were not RS.
*CCTV was not AK, or can not be seen who.
*That is not blood in the picture, but a form of luminal.

 

[dgfred]

I remain amazed that anyone can tell with any accuracy what statements (beyond what AK or RS wrote) were actually made. In fact, I think accuracy is not intact at all. I read different versions of what AK or RS allegedly said and each differs slightly, enough of a difference that I'm sure the real statements, esp. with context, is something different than what is being restated as if it is the gospel.

Knowing how bad many (if not most) people are at remembering exact words, phrases, statements without some kind of word-for-word transcript or recording, I'm now 99% sure that what I've been told AK and RS said before, during, and after the investigation is not actually what they said and certainly not what they meant, because important context is missing.

Reading the debate back 'n forth on the threads is now pushing me more towards the innocent line. Not merely just 'not guilty,' where I was treading, but I'm actually now considering the possibility that RS and AK were falsely accused and there was a conspiracy to convict them.

Well, just take the written statements of the 'gift', emails home, and each one's diary. That should give enough examples of lying/bending/deflecting/twisting and their context at the time.

We have seen which side you were on all along. How would there ever be a 'not guilty' without them being innocent anyway? If AK was there, she is just as guilty of murder... if she was not there, she would be innocent. Not much room for any in between IMO.

 

[otto]

Otto, this seems like you're backtracking. I listed a bunch of errors reported by the press and you responded saying the press "never created false information". Now you're saying that you never bought into any of that false information. However, just yesterday you cited false information put out by the press where they had mistranslated Amanda's diary to the point where it had a completely different meaning.

What I actually said is that I have based my opinion on court documents, not blogs, sciencespheres, opinions from DNA people in foreign countries, disgruntled authors, or PR machines.

Yesterday, in order to make a point about Amanda's ever changing alibi, I quoted a news source that summarized her ever changing alibi. I understand that you objected to Amanda's story about Raffaele pressing her fingerprints onto the knife while she slept. I believe that I also mentioned that each of the alibis had is own circumstances and explanations ... but that doesn't eliminate the fact that it happened, it merely gives context. There is context for her original alibi, the one that has Patrick murdering Meredith, the one where Patrick doesn't murder Meredith, and the funny explanation for having her prints on the knife ... all have an explanation.

Amanda's alibi changed, and none of them - not even the "we stayed at Raffaele's all night" - hold water.

 

[otto]

I remain amazed that anyone can tell with any accuracy what statements (beyond what AK or RS wrote) were actually made. In fact, I think accuracy is not intact at all. I read different versions of what AK or RS allegedly said and each differs slightly, enough of a difference that I'm sure the real statements, esp. with context, is something different than what is being restated as if it is the gospel.

Knowing how bad many (if not most) people are at remembering exact words, phrases, statements without some kind of word-for-word transcript or recording, I'm now 99% sure that what I've been told AK and RS said before, during, and after the investigation is not actually what they said and certainly not what they meant, because important context is missing.

Reading the debate back 'n forth on the threads is now pushing me more towards the innocent line. Not merely just 'not guilty,' where I was treading, but I'm actually now considering the possibility that RS and AK were falsely accused and there was a conspiracy to convict them.

Why don't you read the trial transcript ... then you know exactly what Amanda said in court, and don't have to rely on third party interpretations.