Motivation Report has been released

[otto]

Quote:
"If I were there, I would have traces of Meredith"s broken body on me. And I would have left traces of myself around - around Meredith's corpse," she said.

"And I - I am not there. And that proves my innocence."



Yes it's funny how AK wants everyone to believe that because her DNA isn't on Meredith's body, it means she's innocent. It's her that has the crimescene limited to close to Meredith's body. That would be convenient for her but in many cases DNA isn't found. If only solving every crime was that simple. The entire cottage is a crimescne, hence the tape on the front door not on Meredith's bedroom door.

It's more funny logic. If the suspect's DNA has to be on the victim's "broken body/corpse" for the suspect to be guilty, it's time to open the prisons, as there are many prisoners whose DNA was not discovered at a crime scene.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yep. When he wasn't selling stories to tabloids he was saying in court...



Testimony p144-145



(Mignini Questioning)

Q: Listen, how was your relationship with Amanda?

A: My relationship, from my point of view was good.

Q: Was it always like that?

A: Our personal or work relationship?

Q: Both.

A: As a person, honestly, from what I know, we always had a good relationship, but with her as an employee, with her way of working, I had to repeat her tasks to her several times.

Q: Did you have some … Did you have to tell her off on occasion? Did you have some… Did you ever argue?

A: No no no no.

Q: Did you ever have to raise your voice, for example?

A: No no no never, no no never, because even when these types of things happened, after the customers left and she had neglected to clear a table, what did I do… it’s something that you mustn’t do, I said this like for all staff. I spoke to all employees together to tell them: you have to be careful, when the customers leave, you have to clear up. But saying it directly to her, like that, never.

Q: And Amanda’s relationship with Meredith, how was it?

A: hmm…

Q: Do you know or?

A: No no

Q: You don’t know.

A : I don’t know, I knew they were friends, friends and that’s it.

He answered what was asked, testimony isn't a conversation or a dialog.
Patrick holds a wealth of information. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

Amanda Knox has been convicted of first degree murder. That's all there is to it.

 

[Linda7NJ]

So you ignore his testimony and what's in the court docs and prefer to stick with the British tabloid the Daily Mail.....ok.

No reason to think for a second the testimony and the article aren't congruent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Simply Caustic]

No reason to think for a second the testimony and the article aren't congruent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly right. The answers he gave were responses to the pointed questions he was asked. There was no open-ended inquiry posed to Patrick, requesting the intricacies of his employment, and termination of, Amanda (as barmaid). She was then relegated to handing out flyers, when the need arose (hardly a position of financial comfortably, as any barmaid or waitress will tell you...the tips are where the $$$ is at.) JMO, with respect to all my fellow posters.

Via Kindle, like a true Amazon junkie

 

[Amber29]

It's more funny logic. If the suspect's DNA has to be on the victim's "broken body/corpse" for the suspect to be guilty, it's time to open the prisons, as there are many prisoners whose DNA was not discovered at a crime scene.

It's speaks volumes that Amanda wants the crimescene limited to around Meredith's body only. IMO she knows there's a mountain of other evidence against her in that cottage but wants people to believe that because her DNA wasn't found on Meredith= she's innocent.

 

[SMK]

Sorry if these links have been posted before: Have not had time to go through all the pages of this thread yet.

As could be predicted, same polarized opinions.

I wonder what the SCC will do, how the appeals will go?

Does anyone know the timeframe or any other information with regard to this?

True Justice site claims Andrew Gumbel who wrote the Guardian piece below is being sued for libelous content ( http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php )

From Andrea Vogt:

Amanda Knox wielded the knife that killed Meredith, says judge

Judge who convicted Knox explains why he is convinced of her guilt – even if others aren't

http://www.theweek.co.uk/news-opini...nife-killed-meredith-says-judge#ixzz30ZcnECpn

from The Guardian:

Amanda Knox might get the retrial she deserves if anyone considers the facts

New report full of more distortions shows just how tangled the Italian courts have become in seven years on the hunt –
and why Knox deserves another chance

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/01/amanda-knox-retrial-new-report-italian-court

 

[SMK]

In a recent post (Tuesday, April 29, 2014), True Justice for Meredith Kercher says the Nencini motivational report cites multiple instances of "evidence tampering" (by the defense side) and of criminal slander (same).

It will certainly be interesting to read the English translation of the report.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

 

[dgfred]

Interesting the excuse for Hellmann's supposed comments being broadcast in America before Italy is the threat of a lawsuit.

How did CNN get the statements? Who set the interview up?

I don't blame him for being mad about his ruling being found unreasonable and illogical...
but more 'mistakes' will not help IMO.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Interesting the excuse for Hellmann's supposed comments being broadcast in America before Italy is the threat of a lawsuit.



How did CNN get the statements? Who set the interview up?



I don't blame him for being mad about his ruling being found unreasonable and illogical...

but more 'mistakes' will not help IMO.

I'm holding off making too many comments about the particulars until I get to read the translated version myself. I hate having to wait....strumming my fingers....impatiently.

 

[otto]

Yep. When he wasn't selling stories to tabloids he was saying in court...

Testimony p144-145

(Mignini Questioning)
Q: Listen, how was your relationship with Amanda?
A: My relationship, from my point of view was good.
Q: Was it always like that?
A: Our personal or work relationship?
Q: Both.
A: As a person, honestly, from what I know, we always had a good relationship, but with her as an employee, with her way of working, I had to repeat her tasks to her several times.
Q: Did you have some … Did you have to tell her off on occasion? Did you have some… Did you ever argue?
A: No no no no.
Q: Did you ever have to raise your voice, for example?
A: No no no never, no no never, because even when these types of things happened, after the customers left and she had neglected to clear a table, what did I do… it’s something that you mustn’t do, I said this like for all staff. I spoke to all employees together to tell them: you have to be careful, when the customers leave, you have to clear up. But saying it directly to her, like that, never.
Q: And Amanda’s relationship with Meredith, how was it?
A: hmm…
Q: Do you know or?
A: No no
Q: You don’t know.
A : I don’t know, I knew they were friends, friends and that’s it.

Where is this Q and A from? Could you please attach a link ... Thx

 

[otto]

It's speaks volumes that Amanda wants the crimescene limited to around Meredith's body only. IMO she knows there's a mountain of other evidence against her in that cottage but wants people to believe that because her DNA wasn't found on Meredith= she's innocent.

I've always said that if Knox was a friend to Meredith, she would want every piece of evidence from the entire inside and outside of the cottage examined so that there would be justice for Meredith. There can only be one reason why Knox does not want the courts to consider the evidence in the entire crime scene and that it because she is guilty. That is, innocent people do not want to have evidence of a murder excluded.

 

[otto]

Sorry if these links have been posted before: Have not had time to go through all the pages of this thread yet.

As could be predicted, same polarized opinions.

I wonder what the SCC will do, how the appeals will go?

Does anyone know the timeframe or any other information with regard to this?

True Justice site claims Andrew Gumbel who wrote the Guardian piece below is being sued for libelous content ( http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php )

From Andrea Vogt:



http://www.theweek.co.uk/news-opini...nife-killed-meredith-says-judge#ixzz30ZcnECpn

from The Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/01/amanda-knox-retrial-new-report-italian-court

I think that the defence has 45 days to appeal ... that's the best that I can recall. The Supreme Court will decide whether the appeal should be considered. The case can be sent back for retrial or, as with Guede, the sentence will be upheld. I suspect that the defence will argue that the Judge commented on the case ... said something about Sollecito not speaking to the court when he had so many opportunities ... but that probably won't warrant a new trial. My guess is that it's a done deal except for the extradition.

 

[SMK]

I'm holding off making too many comments about the particulars until I get to read the translated version myself. I hate having to wait....strumming my fingers....impatiently.

For whatever it might be worth, there are now a couple of sections translated on Knox's own blog. But I suppose it will be some time before a complete English translation pdf appears on the Wiki site.

 

[otto]

For whatever it might be worth, there are now a couple of sections translated on Knox's own blog. But I suppose it will be some time before a complete English translation pdf appears on the Wiki site.

Let's see ... Knox is a convicted liar and a convicted murderer. Should we trust anything that she states, writes, or publishes about the court's reasons for the decision?

 

[SMK]

Let's see ... Knox is a convicted liar and a convicted murderer. Should we trust anything that she states, writes, or publishes about the court's reasons for the decision?

Granted - but actually, her translated sections on her blog do not seem favorable to her in the least.

 

[dgfred]

Nor do her answers on it to almost all the questions regarding her/their guilt.

 

[ktgirl]

I know this is not a popular opinion, but...

I don't think Amanda is a murderess.

I think (based on the pro-prosecution books & Amanda's own book) that she is (or at least was at the time she was doing her sudy abroad) inconsiderate, socially inept, selfish, a pothead, pretentious, annoying, and not someone I'd want to live with or hang around. But I don't think she murdered Meredith.

 

[dgfred]

Hey kt. Popular is not the problem... it is the evidence against her/them.

How would you argue against the prosecution's case? What points exactly?

 

[dgfred]

BTW, I noticed you in the Manson threads... AK reminds me a little of the girls.

What have you thought of her and RS's behavior/statements/etc since they got away at appeal?