WARNING:GRAPHIC PHOTOS Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #8

[stilettos]

what evidence do they have that Amanda staged anything? they don't even have her dna in the room? where is Amanda's staging?
just because you think someone did something doesn't mean they go to jail...you have to prove it. Where is the proof that Amanda staged a crime scene? why have non of her so called co-conspirators ratted her out?

why has no one come out and said that Amanda was there and weilded a knife and orchestrated a sex murder party?

because it nver happened. And I don't beleive a word of the supposed confession.

I have not posted much in this thread because all of you know so much about the case and hold it down well. That said...I am concerned about this case and the fact that there is NO PROOF of what is charged. Thinking of myself at 20...I may well have flipped out and confessed if they scared me...and it wouldn't take whacking me in the head. A possibly high young woman taken from her support of her BF...confronted with angry policemen in another country...you bet I'd freak at 20. Now, they'd not get past go.

 

[SMK]

what evidence do they have that Amanda staged anything? they don't even have her dna in the room? where is Amanda's staging?
just because you think someone did something doesn't mean they go to jail...you have to prove it. Where is the proof that Amanda staged a crime scene? why have non of her so called co-conspirators ratted her out?

why has no one come out and said that Amanda was there and weilded a knife and orchestrated a sex murder party?

because it nver happened. And I don't beleive a word of the supposed confession.

This is how my inner thought processes conclude on this....

 

[SMK]

I have not posted much in this thread because all of you know so much about the case and hold it down well. That said...I am concerned about this case and the fact that there is NO PROOF of what is charged. Thinking of myself at 20...I may well have flipped out and confessed if they scared me...and it wouldn't take whacking me in the head. A possibly high young woman taken from her support of her BF...confronted with angry policemen in another country...you bet I'd freak at 20. Now, they'd not get past go.

Yeah, this is about the way I feel, too, about myself at 20 in such a situation, versus decades later, and considerably older and wiser.

 

[SMK]

I wish Otto would explain WHY the staged break-in is "a given"? If retired FBI experts and scholars do not believe so, and if Mignini had motive for believing so (judging from his odd history, I would be impressed by him, but wary; very wary)---why is this a foregone conclusion?

 

[SMK]

From post 636, Perugia Murder File:http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=340&sid=3418f72bead37bc901709b502fca3ad8&start=500

"From the Barbie Nadeau article:

‘The stories based on the leaks last week implied that the inability to retest these two crucial pieces of evidence is good news for the defense, but even Knox’s own lawyers were furious that the story broke, fearing that the spin will backfire and that the experts will feel pressured by the publicity as they reach their conclusions. Their final report is still very much a work in progress, and no one knows exactly which way they will rule.'

Not sure where Barbie is going with this, or is it where Knox's lawyers are coming from. The 'expert's' may feel pressure to opinion one way or another."
OK, this is REALLY worrisome. So there is public and political pressure? What about objectivity?

 

[Nova]

She did confess to murder. Being present in the cottage during the murder and not do anything about it makes her guilty under Italian law. Of course, I understand what you mean but the confession should not be taken lightly. Standing in the kitchen with her fingers in her ears during the murder does not make it ok.

I don't doubt your word on Italian law (and I certainly don't claim to be an expert on it). But how is such a law enforced?

AK didn't even claim to be in the same room when she heard a scream. Are you saying that everyone within earshot was also guilty of murder unless he or she ran directly toward the scream and fought off the attacker? I'm sure you aren't. So how does AK become guilty of murder based on her statement?

 

[jjenny]

Let's say, for example, a man/woman is a gateway driver in a bank robbery. During this robbery a bank customer gets shot and killed. Under US law, i believe it is quite possible the gateway driver can be charged with murder even though he/she was not even inside the bank when the murder took place. So, the same logic could apply if someone is in the house during the murder.

 

[nosysw]

Let's say, for example, a man/woman is a gateway driver in a bank robbery. During this robbery a bank customer gets shot and killed. Under US law, i believe it is quite possible the gateway driver can be charged with murder even though he/she was not even inside the bank when the murder took place. So, the same logic could apply if someone is in the house during the murder.

I don't think that logic holds...Because a getaway driver is committing a crime just by being in the position of being a getaway driver. If she was in a cottage when a murder was committed but did not know it was going to happen and was not involved in committing it then that is completely different than what you are describing...

 

[nosysw]

I apologize if this has already been posted- I'm behind...I looked for a bit and didn't see it but it's probably old news if I'm coming up with it!

http://www.comcast.net/video/knox-s-lawyers-expose-key-witness/1860486411/Comcast/1860190883/

Video about Knox's lawyers exposing major witness flaws...

 

[SMK]

Let's say, for example, a man/woman is a gateway driver in a bank robbery. During this robbery a bank customer gets shot and killed. Under US law, i believe it is quite possible the gateway driver can be charged with murder even though he/she was not even inside the bank when the murder took place. So, the same logic could apply if someone is in the house during the murder.

Right, as nosysw says, you are committing a crime when you agree to be the get-a-way driver. Only if Knox, say, acted as a "lure" for Rudy ( such as "I will make sure Meredith arrives home early, so you can grab her") would she be an accessory to murder.

 

[Nova]

Isn't this something:

" As the drama played out on the stand, Knox’s tense supporters jeered and pointed, trying to intimidate journalists seated in the public viewing area through guttural growls and stern warnings to “write the truth.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...ppeal-homeless-mans-contradictory-testimony/#

The Knox tribe trying to intimidate the press?

I don't know, I wasn't there; but I have trouble believing AK's family thinks this would be helpful. Giving interviews to CBS, sure. Shouting at journalists in a courtroom? That's almost certain to backfire and harm AK.

To me, the shouters sound more like the groupies who attach themselves to every well-publicized trial.

 

[SMK]

I don't know, I wasn't there; but I have trouble believing AK's family thinks this would be helpful. Giving interviews to CBS, sure. Shouting at journalists in a courtroom? That's almost certain to backfire and harm AK.

To me, the shouters sound more like the groupies who attach themselves to every well-publicized trial.

I thought so, too---her family has been making an effort to be low-key....

 

[Nova]

I wish Otto would explain WHY the staged break-in is "a given"? If retired FBI experts and scholars do not believe so, and if Mignini had motive for believing so (judging from his odd history, I would be impressed by him, but wary; very wary)---why is this a foregone conclusion?

I wasn't appointed to speak for otto, but I believe his point is that the Court decided not to review the evidence that the break-in was staged. So in a legal sense, the Court has said the staging there is "a given."

 

[SMK]

I wasn't appointed to speak for otto, but I believe his point is that the Court decided not to review the evidence that the break-in was staged. So in a legal sense, the Court has said the staging there is "a given."

OK, thanks, yes, I guess it is a done deal in the legal sense. (although the defense may feel that it was a real, and not staged, break in)-- That does not look good, then, for Amanda.

 

[Nova]

Let's say, for example, a man/woman is a gateway driver in a bank robbery. During this robbery a bank customer gets shot and killed. Under US law, i believe it is quite possible the gateway driver can be charged with murder even though he/she was not even inside the bank when the murder took place. So, the same logic could apply if someone is in the house during the murder.

No, the underlying legal principle is different, jenny. What you are describing is usually called "felony murder" for short. It is the law in most if not all U.S. jurisdictions: if you are an accomplice in an ongoing felony (the robbery in your example), then you are equally responsible for any murder committed by your co-conspirators during the commission of that felony. Your physical location usually doesn't matter.

But in this case, even if we take AK's statement literally and ignore the fact that most of it was obviously fiction, there is no indication of an ongoing felony or an agreement to commit a felony between AK and the fictional "PL" she put at the scene. As I understand it, there's no agreement to rape MK, no plan to commit robbery, etc. And despite the numerous prosecution theories presented at trial, no attempt was made to construe such a felony plan from the statement (probably because by the time of the trial, they were trying to "get" RS as well and, anyway, AK's original statement wasn't admissible).

Again taking her statement literally, AK would not be guilty of murder under U.S. law, but Sherlockh says Italian law is different. I think s/he's saying proximity to the crime DOES matter, and I'm hoping he will explain further.

 

[Nova]

I thought so, too---her family has been making an effort to be low-key....

I'm not qualified to evaluate every step her family has taken. And frankly I can't imagine what all I would do if my daughter were arrested for murder in a foreign country.

But I don't think there's any reason to think the Mellas/Knox relatives are morons. They have to know courts and reporters are sensitive to the appearance of bending to outside pressure. They've probably been advised to do certain things (like give interviews, maybe even contact their senator), but I doubt they were told to go to court and scream at reporters.

 

[Nova]

what evidence do they have that Amanda staged anything? they don't even have her dna in the room? where is Amanda's staging?
just because you think someone did something doesn't mean they go to jail...you have to prove it. Where is the proof that Amanda staged a crime scene? why have non of her so called co-conspirators ratted her out?

why has no one come out and said that Amanda was there and weilded a knife and orchestrated a sex murder party?

because it nver happened. And I don't beleive a word of the supposed confession.

I think the primary argument that AK did the staging is that no one else seems to have had much to gain from doing it. It was the allegations of staging that first put me in the pro-verdict camp.

But since then I've learned:

1. There is considerable disagreement among experts as to whether anything was staged. In particularly, luminol found little to no evidence of wiping; the mop and bucket tested negative for blood.

2. Only traces of AK and RS were cleaned up; somehow they left RG's traces in place, even the invisible ones.

2. RG has a history of burglary charges and/or suspicions.

3. The evidence of staging relied not on expert analysis with accompanying photos, etc., but primarily on the recollection of the girl whose room was tossed. (I have no reason to believe she is lying, but I do think it possible she had an imperfect memory of how she left the room.)

 

[Nova]

OK, thanks, yes, I guess it is a done deal in the legal sense. (although the defense may feel that it was a real, and not staged, break in)-- That does not look good, then, for Amanda.

No, but there are other sources that say this first "appeal" is different from an appeal in the U.S., that in essence the court reviews ALL evidence and comes to a fresh conclusion taking all evidence into consideration (which is why defendants are considered really "convicted" until after the first appeal).

But there are apparent experts who seem to see it as otto does. (I.e., otto has good reason for his opinion; he didn't invent it himself.)

So at this point I have no idea what is the truth.

 

[SMK]

No, but there are other sources that say this first "appeal" is different from an appeal in the U.S., that in essence the court reviews ALL evidence and comes to a fresh conclusion taking all evidence into consideration (which is why defendants are considered really "convicted" until after the first appeal).

But there are apparent experts who seem to see it as otto does. (I.e., otto has good reason for his opinion; he didn't invent it himself.)

So at this point I have no idea what is the truth.

Thanks for that info, really appreciated----yes, it is difficult indeed to get a grasp of where this is going for Amanda.....

 

[minazoe]

it's all conjecture...all of it...our lady justice will weep for Amanda....Justice is not served when a person is convicted on conjecture and wishful thinking.