Meredith Kercher murdered in Perugia, Amanda Knox convicted #3

[Tizzle]

I'm not going to debate in circles, fred. Myself and other pro-defense posters have been over all of this stuff at least a dozen times and probably closer to 100 times. Amanda Knox is Innocent. Raffaele Sollecito is Innocent. Both are being held hostage in an Italian prison. There is no need for the redundancy and double quoting me with basically the same response I've seen a ton of times is overdoing it a bit. If you want answers to these questions, give the three threads that WS has dedicated to the subject a quick read, again.

As far as Oprah is concerned, I don't know what you are getting at by saying she is normally passionate about injustices she believes in but that it didn't seem to be the case here. I find it REALLY hard to believe that if she didn't believe in this INJUSTICE, she would have people on her show pointing the finger at a lone black man, being a woman of color herself and all. Oprah is no dummy, I have nothing but respect for her and the same is true for MILLIONS of others. She had them on her show for a reason and that reason was to bring attention to the INJUSTICE that has occurred in Perugia. Some of the remarks Oprah made at certain points in the program tell me that she sees the truth, that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were wrongfully convicted. The appeals, I pray, will prove that.

Is justice served when those convicted of the crime are innocent? Absolutely not. I'm quite certain that Meredith would feel the same. Justice was served when Rudy was found guilty. Justice was lost when Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were found guilty. Instead of being able to properly mourn the horrific loss of a young life, we are forced to also mourn the loss of freedom of two innocent young people. And that is what takes away from the true tragedy here, the focus has been taken away from Meredith because an overzealous prosecution convicted two INNOCENT people.

 

[jjenny]

Innocent? So you say.
As far as I am concerned both exhibited some peculiar behavior, so I am far from convinced they are "innocent."

 

[Tizzle]

It is not what I say, jen. It is the truth. And more than just I know it. More and MORE are starting to realize that Amanda and Raffaele are INNOCENT. Peculiar behavior does NOT make one a murderer. I would fight just as hard for any one of you if you were wrongly accused, convicted and being held hostage in an Italian prison. It's WRONG and inhumane to imprison innocent people.

 

[dgfred]

It is not what I say, jen. It is the truth. And more than just I know it. More and MORE are starting to realize that Amanda and Raffaele are INNOCENT. Peculiar behavior does NOT make one a murderer. I would fight just as hard for any one of you if you were wrongly accused, convicted and being held hostage in an Italian prison. It's WRONG and inhumane to imprison innocent people.

I see absolutely no proof that 'more and MORE' are starting to realize that AK and RS are innocent... in fact all that are moving to that side have no influence over what has and what will happen. I see just the opposite from those that are willing to look at the evidence and testimony with an open mind clear of bias for the 'wrongly accused' AK and RS. Wonder why their expensive defense teams couldn't crack the prosecution case, especially since it is SO clear to some like yourself? The Kerchers seem to be completely convinced and pleased as far as someone with a murdered daughter can be... that the ones responsible are RIGHT WHERE THEY SHOULD BE. When the appeals fail I hope some can rightfully call them prisoners instead of hostages, as it is factually correct and very humane compared to what punishment they 'should' have gotten.

*What parts of the Oprah show proved to you that she 'sees the truth'? Could you give some examples?

To me it looked as if the family didn't really answer the questions about accusing PL, drug use, and AK's behavior just after the murder and beyond. Also no mention of the 'gift' letter to prosecutors or the repeated lies in it and all the emails home to friends and family. Same as usual, deflecting the tough questions and harping on the 'media' conviction of AK :innocent: ... but not RS :waitasec: .

 

[Tizzle]

I see absolutely no proof that 'more and MORE' are starting to realize that AK and RS are innocent... in fact all that are moving to that side have no influence over what has and what will happen.

I beg to differ, completely.

*What parts of the Oprah show proved to you that she 'sees the truth'? Could you give some examples?

Well, first, as I said before, I find it hard to believe that Oprah would advocate a cause by having the family and their attorney on her show to tell their true story in which they implicate a lone black man, Rudy, when she, herself, is a woman of color. That's a big one, for me. Also, considering the innocent man, PL, that Amanda allegedly accused of killing Meredith is also a black man.

Second, before the first commercial break, in regards to the clasp "collection" Curt states "So, with people going in and out, there's a possibility of extreme contamination."
To which Oprah replies, "Yeah, absolutely, for that length of time."

Third, when Elizabeth Vargas is talking about Amanda's trip to the "lingerie" store (it was really more like a Target) being recorded and released in the press, Oprah starts shaking her head in obvious disgust and throws her hands up, as if to say "What the hell?"

These are only a few of things that cause me to believe that Oprah sees the truth, that Amanda and Raf are innocent. The picture I have attached below is another example.

To me it looked as if the family didn't really answer the questions about accusing PL, drug use, and AK's behavior just after the murder and beyond. Also no mention of the 'gift' letter to prosecutors or the repeated lies in it and all the emails home to friends and family. Same as usual, deflecting the tough questions and harping on the 'media' conviction of AK :innocent: ... but not RS :waitasec: .

They answered questions about PL, they said it was suggested to Amanda by the police, which we already knew. They said she smoked pot, when Oprah asked about drug use. They addressed the alleged "peculiar" behavior of Amanda and their explanation makes sense to me. They also address what you call her "gift" letter and they also state that Amanda has maintained the same story from beginning to end. The only time her story "changes" is during the interrogation that was not taped, even though every other move Amanda made during that time was being recorded. Strange that recording the most important part, her "confession", was "overlooked".

They don't mention RS as much because RS has his own defense and they don't want to interfere with his defense strategy and because their concern, first and foremost, is with their own daughter being held hostage. However, they DO maintain that Raf is also innocent. This was a conviction by media and an overzealous/crazy prosecutor that fed the false information to the media and Raf was unfortunate enough to be caught in the middle of it.

 

[ohiogirl]

To me it looked as if the family didn't really answer the questions about accusing PL, drug use, and AK's behavior just after the murder and beyond. Also no mention of the 'gift' letter to prosecutors or the repeated lies in it and all the emails home to friends and family. Same as usual, deflecting the tough questions and harping on the 'media' conviction of AK :innocent: ... but not RS :waitasec: .[/QUOTE]

The questions have been answered repeatedly, you just don't like or don't believe the answers. That is your choice, it's a free world.

 

[dgfred]

That is the entire point!
AK did NOT keep the same story.

1st it was 'I stayed at my boyfriend's home all night'.
2nd it was 'I am not sure what happened, you know... pot and all'. :innocent:
3rd it was 'PL was there, he wanted MK, I don't know what happened, I heard a scream'.
4th in the 'gift' she REPEATS what she said in the 'interrogation' was the truth as best as she can remember... she thinks'. :angel:
5th but in emails home a day or two later she claims again that she spent the night at RS's.
6th she lets PL sit in jail for 2 weeks without the truth that would set him free.
7th that alibi is blown out of the water because RS no longer provides a alibi because he states AK was NOT there, left and did not return until about 1am.
8th now once again both AK and RS to a degree claim they can NOT remember what exactly happened the night before... you know, pot and all.
9th now it seems the theory of her supporters is that: she was coerced (suggested to) the first time she accused PL, then was confused (scared, in shock) or whatever when she admitted in the 'gift' what she had said previously was true (at least in her 'confused' mind), then lets him sit in jail for two weeks (still confused I guess) without telling the truth, then emails home stating ONCE AGAIN that she had spent the night at RS's.

There is NO WAY to spin these multiple conflicting statements (lies) into AK was scared and coerced (suggested to)... but yet STILL couldn't tell the truth whether in police custody or not. Poor AK, the media is so harsh on her... and the jury couldn't see the truth because they were blinded by the media .
IMO it was the lies, evidence and lack of anything showing innocence that got them where they are now. An innocent person has no reason to REPEAT lies over and over when simple explanations would prove innocence.

 

[dgfred]

To me it looked as if the family didn't really answer the questions about accusing PL, drug use, and AK's behavior just after the murder and beyond. Also no mention of the 'gift' letter to prosecutors or the repeated lies in it and all the emails home to friends and family. Same as usual, deflecting the tough questions and harping on the 'media' conviction of AK :innocent: ... but not RS :waitasec: .

The questions have been answered repeatedly, you just don't like or don't believe the answers. That is your choice, it's a free world.[/QUOTE]

Yeah right, they answered the questions. If they actually answered the questions... then several follow up ones should have been made. Then it would have been clear that their answers were vague, not totally true, and were basically deflecting.

She smoked enough pot to kill an elephant if she can't remember what she did the night of the murder. Why lie if innocent? What is the truth then???
She was not coerced or suggested to in the gift to the prosecutor.
She repeated the lie of staying with RS all night, both in emails and what the family must now claim again... even though proven NOT TRUE.
She was coerced for two weeks... letting PL sit in jail. Another yeah right.

So what exactly IS the family's position on WHAT EXACTLY AK DID THAT NIGHT??? Is there a smidgen of evidence of what they did if not what the prosecution claims?

I guess in your opinion the media did convict them... but for most (and the judges, jury) it was their lies and the evidence that put them right where they belong.

 

[Tizzle]

Droplets of mixed blood (no matter where) are quite suspicious at a bloody murder scene. No other blood mixed with the victim except for another accused. If RG was there on a date (as he claimed) would not it be reasonable for his blood/dna to be mixed with the victims even though he claimed to have nothing to do with the murder? If it works for AK it should be the same for RG... funny how evidence that points to AK is disreguarded but evidence against RG is seen as completely reliable and reasonable.

One of RS's legal team also claimed AK's dna was also found on the bra clasp.
The video of the bra clasp does not prove contamination (or planting :banghead: ) by the forensic team. Contamination MUST be proven in court, not speculated upon or 'hoped' for. The clasp was gathered later because the defense teams had to be present... no other reason. If the prosecution would have claimed AK's dna is all over MK's room, the evidence would have been disreguarded... because she lived there! You can not have it both ways. Either way you are going to claim 'something isn't right' which ever way the prosecution tried to argue. dna in room because she lived there/ no dna in there because she is innocent (that arguement would be a no-win situation for the prosecution).

Crying foul, contaminated evidence, planted evidence, coercion, beatings, a crooked prosecutor (out of two), a conspiracy by an entire nation, a police conspiracy, ignorant jurors, blind judges,etc sounds alot like the last gasp of a GUILTY party and is quite common. Wonder why RS's defense team does not use the same mantra the AK's support teams do... probably because it is off the mark in every aspect and plain to see.

Really?
You, yourself, expressed concerns over or "speculated upon" the clasp "collection" video and the issues with the DNA evidence less than a year ago. How quickly we forget. :waitasec:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - British student murdered in Perugia, 3 suspects


Apparently, you recognized the issues with the evidence then, what's changed?

 

[dgfred]

No, I stated that it would be a problem for the prosecution... obviously they were quite able to overcome it. Also it seems the defense arguements were not able to sway the jury to contamination. Same with the knife dna. Since contamination has to be proven, and it was not... there wasn't contamination in the eyes of the judges/jury.

 

[Tizzle]

The defense was not able to "sway" the jury because they weren't permitted to present the evidence that would "sway" them...

That won't happen during appeals, rest assured.

 

[dgfred]

Don't think so... but at least you are persistant with your hopes. Unless they have new evidence, the same old same old just will not do. Appeals will fail.

 

[Tizzle]

Don't think so... but at least you are persistant with your hopes. Unless they have new evidence, the same old same old just will not do. Appeals will fail.

{BBM}
Ditto, except I believe their appeals will be SUCCESSFUL.

ETA: They will have new evidence during appeals because they will likely be allowed to present their case, which didn't happen in the first trial.

 

[dgfred]

How in the world could they NOT have presented their (a) case in about 2 yrs of trial??? I would ask for a refund if that was what happened.
There is no new evidence, thus they will remain in prison and likely will not get any (or little) reduction in sentence. The only chance AK has is if one of the other two admit her part in the murder was periphial... because the idea of her not having at least a part in the murder is nonexistant imo. Talk to ya next week.

 

[Tizzle]

Meredith Kercher murder trial court rejects evidence review opening way for earlier verdict

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...edith-Kercher-murder-trial.html#ixzz0TXba1KRQ

ETA: Their first trial didn't last 2 years.

 

[Monzoo]

How in the world could they NOT have presented their (a) case in about 2 yrs of trial??? I would ask for a refund if that was what happened.
There is no new evidence, thus they will remain in prison and likely will not get any (or little) reduction in sentence. The only chance AK has is if one of the other two admit her part in the murder was periphial... because the idea of her not having at least a part in the murder is nonexistant imo. Talk to ya next week.

The trial itself did not take two years, although Amanda and Raffaele were jailed for two years before they were convicted.

According to this timeline of the case,
11/02/07 -- Meredith's body is discovered
11/06/07 -- AK and RS are arrested
10/28/08 -- AK and RS are ordered to stand trial
01/16/09 -- Trial Begins
12/04/09 -- AK and RS are found guilty

During the 11 month trial, the court met only 2-3 days per week, and took a 2-3 month summer break. Not remotely close to two years of trial testimony.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I finally saw the Oprah show today and am glad I did. Oprah definitely saw issues in the legal case, esp. in regards to:

- The fact of no forensic evidence of AK in MK's room.
- The bra clasp being left there for many weeks and passed around
- No motive
- The prosecution failing to record the 14 hrs worth of interrogation of AK (Oprah really reacted to that).
- Oprah asked about the 'turning cartwheels' story and AK's family said she did not ever turn a cartwheel, though she did a split when they asked her what she could do as a former gymnast. There is a language barrier & things get muddied in translation.
- Oprah has had stories (and guests) on her show before who confessed to crimes they did not commit after being interrogated and coerced--she mentioned this.
- The fact that the Italian jury does not go through a voir dire process and are not limited to media reports, along with the various made-up stories of AK and/or focus on things that have nothing to do with this crime.
- Elizabeth Vargas gave her opinions based on interviews and research she's done in Perugia and it's clear she also has many questions about this verdict.

So, if nothing else, the Oprah show raised many questions and I believe it's important to ask questions and seek the truth.

I know I'm troubled by the media and character assassination aspect of the case, which went on for 1+ years before trial. A picture was painted by the media and it doesn't sound like that picture is accurate.

The interrogation without being recorded is a huge problem, and I believe AK is telling the truth about being hit on the back of the head and being told to imagine other possibilities of the crime. Why did they manage to record and tap AK's phones but didn't record the hrs of interrogation? I'm sorry, but that's HINKY! What were they trying to avoid or hide?

 

[dgfred]

Interesting how the 'hinky' meter goes off when discussing the lack of taping of the interrogation, but doesn't do anything when the suspects tell repeated lies (both AK and RS). AK confirmed in her 'gift' to the prosecutor that what she said in the interrogation WAS true as far as her 'confused' mind was concerned :innocent: . No hinky meter reaction when letting a innocent man sit in jail for 2 weeks without a retraction of what she told about him being the murderer? :banghead:
No hinky meter when RS says he 'pricked' MK's hand while at a non-existant
dinner with her? No hinky meter reaction when they call the police AFTER the postal police were already there? No hinky when AK calls MK's phone but hangs up after about 3 rings... but they don't call her phones when they think she may be locked (harmed) inside her room? No hinky about a shower among blooddrops, and skushing along on a bathmat with a bloody footprint on it??? Strange :waitasec: .

Does the hinky go off when RS says they were on the computer all night? NOT TRUE.
Does the hinky go off when AK says she was with RS all night watching movie
on the computer in emails home and in first alibi? NOT TRUE.

Selective 'hinky' it seems.

 

[tut med]

I heard you can clean a hinky meter with bleach

 

[dgfred]

The judges motivational report for the unanimous guilty verdict should be out sometime tomorrow.