Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #6

[miley]

PRIOR TO THE CRIME is the important part. If she is dumb enough (and RS too) to write journals/diary in jail... then what is in them is open season as far as I am concerned. Maybe their lawyers should have PREVENTED them for writing them.

Yes, the information in the diary was released by the family... but I see nothing wrong with releasing the diary by LE either, if they were foolish enough to write it while in jail. The journals written before the crime are different IMO than the diary written while in jail.

You have entirely missed my point - the Dr. asked her to write the list of names which she did, then gave the list to LE who then turned around and gave it to the media...

Her journals that were written before the crime were also given to the media.

You don't have a problem with that? You wouldn't care if your medical records and info., notes written down for medical purposes were released to the public? You wouldn't care if the information was twisted around into
lies and published in articles and in a best selling book?

hmmmm...

 

[Nova]

For those interested, here are the two statements Knox signed, at 1:45 and 5:45:







The fact that Amanda gets the meaning of her own text message wrong in the statements is just further proof, IMO, that these were ILE's ideas and not her own.

Indeed, along with the fact that she only remembers those events which fit LE's theory at the time and incriminate PL and herself. Everything in between and afterward is a blank.

 

[Nova]

Over lenient parents are a problem almost everywhere in the US IMO. That, and telling them how wonderful they are all the time, and nothing they do is wrong. An example is youth soccer around my area... every person gets a trophy. The champions trophy is the same as the last place team's. That way, nobody feelings are hurt. :sick:

And yet the murder rate is lower than it was 30 years ago. Go figure.

Apparently all those overly lenient parents don't produce too many thrill killers.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Much emphasis is put on the very things that have little or no proof to back them up. AK's interrogation (not taped), AK's 'demeanor,' statements AK wrote, but taken out of context.

I wonder why that is?

Why put the most emphasis on the least provable evidence? One is then working from 3rd hand reports, at best, and tabloid media mumblings and imaginings, at worse. I wouldn't feel comfortable making a pronouncement of someone's character or actions or guilt based on such data. It is subjective, variable, and might not even be true.

I mean we can still argue over who left the footprint in the bathroom--at least we can all agree there is, in fact, a footprint there.

The statements attributed to AK? Some of them are manufactured. Some are real. Some are out of context. Not good enough!

 

[angel10510]

A Ph.D. (God only knows in what) from the University of Seattle calls an entire community "a shifty bunch"?

I assume otto linked to this site to show us the single most preposterous article ever written on this case.

Is it possible this is a joke piece, like the Onion? There is no such professor in the school of Psychology at Seattle University.

 

[Nova]

In my opinion the personality defects of the accused is what is the attraction in this case. That is what has made this case a headliner.

Like with Scott Peterson the world is fascinated by a seemly normal even attractive on the surface looking suspect who seems to think pulling a few sad faces does the job so they can continue on their merry way.

Then there are aspects to a sociopathic personality that are very compelling, addictive even.

You continue to diagnose strangers as sociopaths without (a) identifying your credentials to make such a diagnosis, or (b) identifying the affects and actions from which you draw your conclusion. (ETA you do identify some of the affects you find troubling below, but you're still far short of enough info to make a diagnosis. Can we call this opinion a guess?)

This is why I compared the lay concept of "sociopath" to "satanist." They are both mere "boogeymen" catch phrases used to explain away lack of evidence by ascribing inhuman motives to a broad and often vaguely defined group of persons. In other periods, people would have substituted "witches," "Negros", "Jews" or "Communists."

Which is why I am not surprised that some defend AK & RS. I am sure that same as with other prisoners they get their share of love letters and devoted pen pals.

This would be offensive if it referred to posters here, who have merely argued there is a lack of evidence of AK's and RS' guilt. So I'll assume you are talking about other people somewhere "out there" who feel an emotional connection to the defendants.

<modsnip>

How else would a simple gal innocently, studiously representing America and her bookish looking boyfriend end up in such a quandary?

Because LE formed a theory first and then coerced testimony to support it. This is hardly the first case where that has happened.

AK drew attention to herself at the scene and the police station I am sure without intending to but instead lacking empathy her stance did not ring true. I have spent more time upset and feeling withdrawn after seeing a stray dog hit by a car.

You have no way of knowing how upset AK was or was not. As for failing to "withdraw," how could she? She was at the police station more than 10 hours each day.

A normal person being tremendously shaken by the horror (after all what if it had been she at home alone?) would observe the decorum of the setting of the police station recognizing the gravity of the situation.

Up to a certain point, perhaps. But an active 20-year-old might well fidget after awhile. I've taught kids that age and after an hour and a half of sitting still for a lecture, they start to bounce off the walls.

Not sharing the low opinion of their law enforcement I think they smelled a rat from the first and the length of her questioning reflects that. It was simply obvious she was unremorseful lair.

The baleful face she pulled, while kissing RS at the murder scene indicated her initial recognition of needing to display some sort of reaction.

But hardly the face of someone who has just discovered that a roommate has been murdered in her home -instead of fear, concern, and I would think even panic or anxiety to be so far from home her being such an innocent lass and all.

Maybe I would have bought it as a funeral face but right then, no surprise Amanda, not shocked not even a bit are you?


All IMO

BBM: and so we have the real defense of the verdicts: "It was simply obvious."

AK is guilty of murder because she looks guilty to some people, and that seems to be the bottom line.

 

[Nova]

Is it possible this is a joke piece, like the Onion? There is no such professor in the school of Psychology at Seattle University.

Thanks. I didn't think of that. That would make more sense, wouldn't it?

ETA: You are exactly right. There's an exchange with Steven Shay in the comment section in which it is discussed that opinions on AK's guilt vary in West Seattle, just as they do here and everywhere else. The article is indeed a joke.

 

[Nova]

Much emphasis is put on the very things that have little or no proof to back them up. AK's interrogation (not taped), AK's 'demeanor,' statements AK wrote, but taken out of context.

I wonder why that is?

Why put the most emphasis on the least provable evidence? One is then working from 3rd hand reports, at best, and tabloid media mumblings and imaginings, at worse. I wouldn't feel comfortable making a pronouncement of someone's character or actions or guilt based on such data. It is subjective, variable, and might not even be true.

I mean we can still argue over who left the footprint in the bathroom--at least we can all agree there is, in fact, a footprint there.

The statements attributed to AK? Some of them are manufactured. Some are real. Some are out of context. Not good enough!

I wonder, too. There is quite a focus here on cartwheels and beatings and the total number of hours in a week.

 

[dgfred]

You have entirely missed my point - the Dr. asked her to write the list of names which she did, then gave the list to LE who then turned around and gave it to the media...

Her journals that were written before the crime were also given to the media.

You don't have a problem with that? You wouldn't care if your medical records and info., notes written down for medical purposes were released to the public? You wouldn't care if the information was twisted around into
lies and published in articles and in a best selling book?

hmmmm...

Do you have a link that shows LE gave the diary entries to the media???

I have always understood the information in the diary to have been given by the family.

hmmm indeed.

 

[miley]

Do you have a link that shows LE gave the diary entries to the media???

I have always understood the information in the diary to have been given by the family.

hmmm indeed.

I provided three links in my original post -

 

[miley]

I outlined and indented the quotes and included the links - i don't see how you missed them

Originally Posted by miley:

Originally Posted by dgfred
It was their DUTY to notify her... even if a 'false-positive' test result. They told her immediately that they would re-run the test to be sure.

*Wasn't it the family or defense that released the partners list anyway???

How noble of them - was it also their duty to hand over her diaries and journals to a news director/journalist/crime writer
seriously? a week in, do you really think her parents would start distributing her journals to the media and telling them she had HIV --

guardian.co.uk

John hooper:
So many were taken aback to learn that, by the time she was arrested at the age of 20, Knox had had sex with seven men.

They were less outraged by how this information was obtained: Knox was told in prison she was HIV-positive and asked to write a list of her lovers. Before she was told that a mistake had been made, the list was passed to investigators, one of whom passed it to a journalist.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/04/two-faces-of-amanda-knox[/I]​

[/quote]

Originally Posted by otto
According to Knox, the first thing they told her when the results were returned was "not to worry, it could be a mistake". I can't imagine who should be "punished" for telling her that. My understanding is that Knox wrote this in her diary and the family chose which pages to release to the public.

It's a lot easier to see the truth once you move past the 4 yr. old media lies.

Futhermore, her journals, written before the crime, were collected as evidence from the cottage and along with the journal started in prison, both were handed over to the media proving this was intentionally done in order to assassinate Amanda's character early on.

(imagine this) the newspaper and writer were punished... not nearly enough considering the news sales and an instant best seller... plus, they forgot the Dr. & Mignini -- wait, Mignini was already on trial for mishandling another investigation and has since been convicted (maybe he'll be on trial for this one next)

Milan author Fiorenza Sarzanini sued for "Amanda and the Others"

The book, Amanda and the Others, was serialized in an Italian newspaper . It became and instant best seller. Written by Fiorenza Sarzanini, a leading crime author in Italy, it contained excerpts taken from Knox's personal journals and notebooks. \

The book also went into details of Knox's sexual life - including a fabriacated interview with an Albanian who claimed Knox liked wild sex.

Judge Gattari ordered that the damages be paid jointly by the author and the newspaper which published the series.
Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Amanda Knox Wins $59,500 in Damages from Milan Journalist | NowPublic News Coverage
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/amanda-knox-wins-59-500-damages-milan-journalist#ixzz1DaI5d7WY​

Perugia shock:

You shouldn't read a girl's diary. Not even publishing it.
Judge Patrizio Gattari, of section 1 of Milan Civil Court, has just ruled against journalist Fiorenza Sarzanini, director of Corriere della Sera Paolo Mieli, RCS Quotidiani S.p.A. and RCS Libri S.p.A. for violation of personal rights of Amanda Knox.

With the book Amanda e gli altri and several articles, as we remember, Sarzanini had published unauthorized excerpts from Amanda's diary and from the writings found in her exercise notebooks, prior to the crime and which were not produced in the trial. The book reported as well Amanda's "sensitive data" as a positive HIV test, which came to be wrong. It also referred the tale of an Albanian --appeared on the newspapers right after the arrests-- who had been describing details of sexual intercourse he said he had with Amanda, which turned to be false. http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2010/03/amanda-knox-compensated.html​

 

[Nova]

In addition to the links, which are clear, there's the simple fact that AK won her suit against the author and publisher. It doesn't make any sense that she would be awarded damages for the publication of something her own family had provided to the media.

 

[Malkmus]

Do you have a link that shows LE gave the diary entries to the media???

I have always understood the information in the diary to have been given by the family.

hmmm indeed.

This is an odd assumption to make anyhow. How and why could the family leak the diary to the press then win a settlement for the diary getting published in the newspaper they gave it to? I think it's understood that it was not the family who leaked it, and if you're under a different belief then you should cite something backing it up, not the other way around.

 

[SleuthyGal]

LOLOL.

Pretty hard to miss those cited articles, considering they were in bold.

I am starting to think there is nothing, short of both Mignini and RG holding a press conference to announce that AK and RS were falsely accused, that will convince anyone who has made up their mind of 'guilt" of either AK's/RS's innocence or at the very least that there is some reasonable doubt about their guilt.

I certainly don't know if they're guilty or not, though I allow for it, but I also see the holes where there is room for doubt, leading to a 'not guilty' conclusion as well.

There may be no amount of article citing that will accomplish anything except tax the typing fingers of the researcher and maybe lead to carpal tunnel syndrome. ;-) Logic alone ain't going to get the job done.

 

[believe09]

I wonder, too. There is quite a focus here on cartwheels and beatings and the total number of hours in a week.

There is nothing remotely amusing about this crime or the circumstances surrounding it, but this post made me laugh.

 

[Allusonz]

I'm at work, so this has to be short.
Allusonz, thank you for the information. So it is possible.

In the myriad of criminology and substance-abuse prevention classes I took during my way too long undergrad studies, the distiction between water-soluble and fat-soluble drugs was discussed at length. It was my understanding that the THC or whatever metabolite or other bodily evidence of marijuana consumption was a fat-soluble substance, and therefore would stay in the body longer.

Is it possible then that other drugs could have been out of her system but because of the fat-soluble nature of the cannabis, it wasn't out of her system, hence the test results?

if you know enough about forensic pathology medicine and the half lives of TCH and cocaine and the metabolites, as well as the diff between water soluable vs fat soluable you dont need my opinion :giggle:

but my answer to the above is no

 

[otto]

I shouldn't have to point out that now you are citing AK's dad, not AK herself. And the difference between the 54 hour claim and the 41 hour claim may be a simple matter of two different people adding the hours differently. (Just as you and Allusonz get different numbers of hours leading up to the PL accusation because you each use a different ending point.)

Why are you still on about this? Nobody here has mentioned physical abuse nor blamed it for coerced testimony; everybody agrees AK said things that weren't true.

And even AK claimed the moon was made of green cheese, it wouldn't put her fingerprints or DNA back where they should be if she had murdered MK.

(ETA and your own later excerpts from AK's testimony show her saying she was struck twice. That may be a "beating" technically, but it isn't how the word is normally used in American English, particularly not with regard to prisoners under interrogation.)

Amanda said there were "blows to the head", and she claimed that she was beaten for somewhere between 10, 14, 41 and 54 hours (her lies, not errors in reporting). None of it was true.

If the discussion is about poor little Amanda being coerced into falsely accusing someone of murder after 2 hours of questioning as a witness, then I think it is important to give contect to her original claim. Her original claim was that she was interrogated for 54 hours (later modified to 2) and beaten (later modified to a cuff on the back of the head by someone that she cannot describe). After removing the 54 hours of brutal interrogation and blows to the head from the equation, all we have left is the completely unbelievable claim that she was forced to confess after 2 hours of questioning.

If we can have pages and pages about people that make false confessions, then we can certainly put Amanda Knox and her statements in proper context.

 

[Nova]

LOLOL.

Pretty hard to miss those cited articles, considering they were in bold.

I am starting to think there is nothing, short of both Mignini and RG holding a press conference to announce that AK and RS were falsely accused, that will convince anyone who has made up their mind of 'guilt" of either AK's/RS's innocence or at the very least that there is some reasonable doubt about their guilt.

I certainly don't know if they're guilty or not, though I allow for it, but I also see the holes where there is room for doubt, leading to a 'not guilty' conclusion as well.

There may be no amount of article citing that will accomplish anything except tax the typing fingers of the researcher and maybe lead to carpal tunnel syndrome. ;-) Logic alone ain't going to get the job done.

I think it bears repeating that, like SleuthyGal, nobody here seems sentimentally attached to Amanda Knox. And AFAIK, nobody has said it was physically impossible for her or RS to participate in the murder of MK.

But the actual evidence against her, when one sets aside ambiguous statements made under pressure and unprovable claims of inappropriate demeanor, just doesn't seem to hold up.

 

[Allusonz]

I outlined and indented the quotes and included the links - i don't see how you missed them

Originally Posted by miley:



How noble of them - was it also their duty to hand over her diaries and journals to a news director/journalist/crime writer
seriously? a week in, do you really think her parents would start distributing her journals to the media and telling them she had HIV --

guardian.co.uk

John hooper:
So many were taken aback to learn that, by the time she was arrested at the age of 20, Knox had had sex with seven men.

They were less outraged by how this information was obtained: Knox was told in prison she was HIV-positive and asked to write a list of her lovers. Before she was told that a mistake had been made, the list was passed to investigators, one of whom passed it to a journalist.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/04/two-faces-of-amanda-knox[/I]​

It's a lot easier to see the truth once you move past the 4 yr. old media lies.

Futhermore, her journals, written before the crime, were collected as evidence from the cottage and along with the journal started in prison, both were handed over to the media proving this was intentionally done in order to assassinate Amanda's character early on.

(imagine this) the newspaper and writer were punished... not nearly enough considering the news sales and an instant best seller... plus, they forgot the Dr. & Mignini -- wait, Mignini was already on trial for mishandling another investigation and has since been convicted (maybe he'll be on trial for this one next)

Milan author Fiorenza Sarzanini sued for "Amanda and the Others"

The book, Amanda and the Others, was serialized in an Italian newspaper . It became and instant best seller. Written by Fiorenza Sarzanini, a leading crime author in Italy, it contained excerpts taken from Knox's personal journals and notebooks. \

The book also went into details of Knox's sexual life - including a fabriacated interview with an Albanian who claimed Knox liked wild sex.

Judge Gattari ordered that the damages be paid jointly by the author and the newspaper which published the series.
Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Amanda Knox Wins $59,500 in Damages from Milan Journalist | NowPublic News Coverage
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/amanda-knox-wins-59-500-damages-milan-journalist#ixzz1DaI5d7WY​

Perugia shock:

You shouldn't read a girl's diary. Not even publishing it.
Judge Patrizio Gattari, of section 1 of Milan Civil Court, has just ruled against journalist Fiorenza Sarzanini, director of Corriere della Sera Paolo Mieli, RCS Quotidiani S.p.A. and RCS Libri S.p.A. for violation of personal rights of Amanda Knox.

With the book Amanda e gli altri and several articles, as we remember, Sarzanini had published unauthorized excerpts from Amanda's diary and from the writings found in her exercise notebooks, prior to the crime and which were not produced in the trial. The book reported as well Amanda's "sensitive data" as a positive HIV test, which came to be wrong. It also referred the tale of an Albanian --appeared on the newspapers right after the arrests-- who had been describing details of sexual intercourse he said he had with Amanda, which turned to be false. http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2010/03/amanda-knox-compensated.html​

this is just one of those posts that i cant hit the thanks button enough

 

[otto]

A Ph.D. (God only knows in what) from the University of Seattle calls an entire community "a shifty bunch"?

I assume otto linked to this site to show us the single most preposterous article ever written on this case.

"Dr. Ursula Ordonez at Seattle University’s School of Psychology"

Isn't it important to know what people in the neighborhood think?