Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 234
  1. #161

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,759
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I have to say that I never understood the claim that Knox was being persecuted because she was so attractive. She isn't, and even if she was, that's something that usually helps a case rather than the other way around.

    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    As I understand it, in placing herself in the house while (supposedly) Lumumba was killink Kercher, Knox described precisely in detail what happened to the victim: so far no one has been able to explain logically and convincingly how she could have known what she described, hadn't she been there.
    This is one of the 14 issues of the appeal trial sentence that the Supreme Court raised flags on, for not being legally and/or logically sound.

    After talking to the police, Knox, while completely alone, decided to write her statements down, in her own nice hand writing, and then proceded to give the papers to the police.

    Later on, she repeated the same statements during a conversation she had with her mother, while the two of them thought they had privacy.

    The interrogation was not recorded, but Knox hand writing is still there, and so is the conversation she had with her mother.
    Actually, that part can be explained. People make false confessions for all sorts of reasons, and might know details that "only the killer would" because police interrogators provide them, inadvertently or on purpose (see here, here and here, for example). That's why it's important to 1. record interrogations in full and 2. have forensic evidence that supports confessions.

    I don't know about the rest of it, though, and certainly implicating an innocent man does not reflect well on her. Sometimes false confessions also involve accusations against other parties (e.g. Jessie Misskelley of the West Memphis Three), but in her case she simply fingered him as the sole perpetrator, didn't she?
    Last edited by Zemgirl; 02-02-2014 at 04:31 PM.

  2. #162
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    17,244
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Zemgirl View Post
    I don't know about the rest of it, though, and certainly implicating an innocent man does not reflect well on her. Sometimes false confessions also involve accusations against other parties (e.g. Jessie Misskelley of the West Memphis Three), but in her case she simply fingered him as the sole perpetrator, didn't she?
    What is unclear, though, is whether the police put the suggestion in her head. There have been reports that the police asked her if Lumumba could have been there/done it. To imagine the scene, if he had. All stemming from texts they found on her phone, between she and Lumumba regarding work.

  3. #163
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    563
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    As I understand it, in placing herself in the house while (supposedly) Lumumba was killink Kercher, Knox described precisely in detail what happened to the victim: so far no one has been able to explain logically and convincingly how she could have known what she described, hadn't she been there.
    This is one of the 14 issues of the appeal trial sentence that the Supreme Court raised flags on, for not being legally and/or logically sound.
    She certainly didn't give details no one else would know in her recorded statements - that was the most confused word salad I've ever read. "I remember confusedly that he killed her" is describing precisely in detail what happened? She and all the roommates had already been told that Meredith had been found under a duvet on the floor with her throat cut. If she gave other details during the interrogation, we'll never know, because it wasn't recorded. None of that was supposed to be considered during the trial anyway because no lawyer was there. Not to turn this into an attack on Italy's justice system but that is one of the points that Americans have a hard time with, that it was ruled inadmissible in the trial but it was heard by the jury anyway since the defamation case occurred simultaneously. And now apparently is a factor in the latest conviction.

    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    I think it's pointless and harmuful to get into details. We'll never have the full picture, or the expertise to understand it, much less form an opinion.
    Really? The trial documents are easily available online. Some of us have plenty of science background to be able to understand the forensic details and problems with the prosecution's evidence. If everyone was so complacent, the West Memphis Three might still be in prison. We can look at the evidence:

    Rudy Guede's handprint set in the victim's blood was found on a pillowcase underneath the body and on the wall in the bedroom where the murder took place. His bloody shoe prints were found in the bedroom and in the hall leading out the door. His fingerprints were on the victim's purse and his DNA was inside the victim. His stool was in the toilet. He had a history of break-ins similar to the one at Knox's and Kercher's house. While the Knox/Sollecito prosecution claimed it was impossible for him to scale the window, there's video evidence of people climbing it in a flash. Guede also had a cut on his right hand and had fled the country. Unlike Knox and Sollecito, Guede was picked up only after forensic evidence pointed to him.

    The physical evidence of Knox and Sollecito: None in the room where the murder took place except a bra clasp that was left to collect dust for 47 days following the murder and had been kicked around to several locations and eventually collected by investigators who never changed their gloves, per crime scene video. The clasp had the DNA of FOUR people on it, including Sollecito's. He had visited the apartment several times and had been involved in the attempt to break down Meredith's door. Since a large component of dust is human epithelial cells, it wouldn't be surprising to find his DNA there even if contamination in the lab could be ruled out.

    The prosecution's star piece of evidence in the first trial was a knife found in a kitchen drawer at Sollecito's apartment. It did not match a bloody imprint of a knife at the scene or the victim's wounds. To fit the narrative, prosecutors then said more than one knife was used. Knox's DNA was found on the handle and a very small amount of Kercher's DNA was on the blade. From this, the prosecution asserted that Sollecito held Kercher down while Guede raped her and Knox stabbed her (sorry for the graphicness, but that was the "sex game gone wrong" story). Maybe the evidence could fit that, but the problem was no trace of blood was ever found on the knife. Typically, if a knife is used as a murder weapon, blood collects in the small spaces around the handle even if an attempt to clean it is made. If an attempt to clean it is so thorough that even this is eliminated, the DNA would have definitely been denatured by the cleaning product. The only possible conclusion is there was never an attempt to clean it of blood and Knox's DNA was there from cooking, while Kercher's was there due to transfer of some kind. Kercher's DNA was present in so minute an amount that it wouldn't be allowable by international standards, btw. This is what was ruled in the second trial and it was thrown out, but reinstated for the third trial. There were also bread crumbs found on the knife.

    There were also some footprints found in the hallway attributed to a female, revealed by Luminol. This is often reported that these are bloody footprints, and the investigator testified they knew it was blood "because of the color" of the luminol. Luminol reacts with several substances - hemoglobin from blood is one, and bleach is another. It always turns blue no matter what substance it reacts with. They were leading from the bathroom and it's logical they were traces of bleach from cleaning products used in the shower. The footprints never tested positive for blood or DNA. Then there's the evidence of "Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood" in the sink. Knox had brushed her teeth in that sink, and large swabs were used to pick up the DNA.

    The prosecution's other main point was the medical examiner who said the murder must have been done by more than one person. Several expert witnesses, including those belonging to the prosecution, admitted that wasn't necessarily true, and if there had been multiple assailants, there would have been no way to not leave evidence of their presence in the room where the murder happened.

    I think that sums up the prosecution's main case from the forensic evidence. Is there something I'm missing, from those who believe Knox/Sollecito to be guilty?

  4. #164
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,173
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Thank you Zippy for the excellent summary, and it's why I so believe in Knox and Sollecito's innocence. Knox, Sollecito, and Guede all supposedly participated in the brutal murder of Meredith. Are we to believe that Knox and Sollecito were able to distinguish and clean away all their prints and DNA from the crime scene, while strategically leaving behind those of Guede's?

  5. #165
    Prick Admin
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Having a kiki
    Posts
    42,401
    vCash
    506
    Rep Power
    25599
    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
    Innocent people make false confessions while undergoing custodial investigations, especially when the investigation is prolonged and certain basic principles of human rights (such as access to an attorney and, if a foreigner, access to consular assistance) are not followed.

    A few good examples of when this has happened are the Salem Witch Trials (which inspired The Crucible) and the cases of the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven (which inspired In the Name of the Father. One of the reasons why the U.S. was criticized for waterboarding was that the people subjected to it said things that weren't true simply to stop the torture.

    I don't think Amanda Knox should be blamed for having lied in custody. Who knows how each of us would have done under the circumstances? I am, however, appalled by the fact that the Italians prosecuted and convicted her for, essentially, being a victim of human rights abuses. What justification could there be for it, other than to discredit her and distract attention from their own actions?
    A victim of human rights abuses?

    And comparing her treatment to that of the Guildford Four or the Maguire Seven (or the friggin Salem Witch trials) is ridiculous.
    To think that fun is simple fun, while earnest things are earnest, proves all too plain that neither one thou truthfully discernest.

  6. #166
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Herot
    Posts
    3,492
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by allezfred View Post
    A victim of human rights abuses?

    And comparing her treatment to that of the Guildford Four or the Maguire Seven (or the friggin Salem Witch trials) is ridiculous.
    Is it? Coercive interrogation for five days without stop while being told that having a lawyer present would make things worse for you is not so different from what happened to the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven, though some (but not all) of those suspects were physically tortured.

  7. #167
    Prick Admin
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Having a kiki
    Posts
    42,401
    vCash
    506
    Rep Power
    25599
    Yes, it is. Knox is a convicted slanderer. End of.
    To think that fun is simple fun, while earnest things are earnest, proves all too plain that neither one thou truthfully discernest.

  8. #168

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,759
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by allezfred View Post
    A victim of human rights abuses?

    And comparing her treatment to that of the Guildford Four or the Maguire Seven (or the friggin Salem Witch trials) is ridiculous.
    I don't think what happened to Knox is on par with what was done in those cases or anywhere near it, and I have no idea if she's culpable in any way in the death of Meredith Kercher. But interrogating a suspect for an extended period of time without access to an attorney, or to food and water, and without recording the questioning isn't really solid police procedure. There's also plenty of evidence that it can have unwanted repercussions, such as false confessions and various inaccuracies. Perhaps a better comparison would be the Robin Hood Hills murders/West Memphis Three? That was also a shocking murder case with allegations of sexual rituals and mutilation, shoddy police work and problems with the forensic evidence, and what was very likely a false confession that implicated others.

  9. #169
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Herot
    Posts
    3,492
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by allezfred View Post
    Yes, it is. Knox is a convicted slanderer. End of.
    Let's leave aside the fact that she made the statements under coercion.

    Do you really think that people should be imprisoned for slander?

  10. #170
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,713
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    As I understand it, in placing herself in the house while (supposedly) Lumumba was killink Kercher, Knox described precisely in detail what happened to the victim: so far no one has been able to explain logically and convincingly how she could have known what she described, hadn't she been there.
    This is one of the 14 issues of the appeal trial sentence that the Supreme Court raised flags on, for not being legally and/or logically sound.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zemgirl View Post
    Actually, that part can be explained. People make false confessions for all sorts of reasons, and might know details that "only the killer would" because police interrogators provide them, inadvertently or on purpose
    As I said, as I understand it - and again, I don't think it's meant for us to understand - "no one has been able to explain logically and convincingly how she could have known what she described". I'm sure that if, as you say, it can easily be explained, then her lawyers will do so.

    All italian sentences come with long and detailed explanations on each and every point, so whether an argument is believed or reject and why is put on paper. If her lawyers explain to the court how Knox could say what she said, and the court decides to reject the explanation, they will have to point out the law and the logic that guided them.


    Quote Originally Posted by zippy View Post
    The trial documents are easily available online. Some of us have plenty of science background to be able to understand the forensic details and problems with the prosecution's evidence.

    Rudy Guede's handprint set in the victim's blood was found on a pillowcase underneath the body and on the wall in the bedroom where the murder took place. His fingerprints were on the victim's purse
    How many match points does it take to make a fingerprint? Is it a universal number, or does it vary from country to country?


    I'm curious though, why would people think italian judges and courts would be so determined to convict two young people without solid evidence, clearly bringing on themselves a hurricane of critiques?
    It would also be a career hazard: each and every decision will be put under a microscope, and each and every eventual mistake will be shouted to the world, why would they want to risk that much?
    Last edited by loulou; 02-02-2014 at 07:53 PM.

  11. #171
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,713
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
    Let's leave aside the fact that she made the statements under coercion.
    This is one of the 14 points the Supreme Court raised a flag on.
    Knox conviction for defamation is definitive, which means it went throu three trials and her laywer troup was not able to overturn it.
    It also means that her declarations were considered not coerced.

    Why? Why would italian courts and judges (three different sets) consider her statements not coerced, if, as you say, they clearly were?

  12. #172
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Herot
    Posts
    3,492
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    This is one of the 14 points the Supreme Court raised a flag on.
    Knox conviction for defamation is definitive, which means it went throu three trials and her laywer troup was not able to overturn it.
    It also means that her declarations were considered not coerced.

    Why? Why would italian courts and judges (three different sets) consider her statements not coerced, if, as you say, they clearly were?
    We have an expression in figure skating:

    + =
    Other than that, the fact that she was apparently not physically tortured was probably good enough for them.

  13. #173
    Bountifully Enmeshed
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    At the Christmas Bizarre
    Posts
    38,161
    vCash
    250
    Rep Power
    46687
    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    How many match points does it take to make a fingerprint? Is it a universal number, or does it vary from country to country?
    It varies from country to country; in Italy, it's 17 points, which is more than some but less than others.

    Not sure what this means, but there you are.
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-- Albert Einstein.

  14. #174
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    563
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    As I said, as I understand it - and again, I don't think it's meant for us to understand - "no one has been able to explain logically and convincingly how she could have known what she described".
    But what did she describe? Where is this written? There's nothing like this in her written statements in question, or the conversation with her mother - just garbled statements about meeting Lumumba at the basketball court, him having sex with Meredith and "confusedly remembering" that he killed her - all of which was wrong, btw. Where is the bombshell detail she described that only the killer could have known? Is it a state secret, or is it just another bit of unfounded sensationalism surrounding this case? Lots of rumors and myths were propagated by journalists, such as the shopping for sexy lingerie, Amanda's bloody footprints, even the cartwheel was apparently an exaggeration according to Knox (she says it was a split after a woman at the station commented on her flexibility while stretching). I've read the supposedly damning Massei report and there's nothing in there about this.

    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    I'm curious though, why would people think italian judges and courts would be so determined to convict two young people without solid evidence, clearly bringing on themselves a hurricane of critiques?
    It would also be a career hazard: each and every decision will be put under a microscope, and each and every eventual mistake will be shouted to the world, why would they want to risk that much?
    Am I wrong to have the understanding that public opinion in Italy is strongly against Knox? Wasn't there a public outcry (with a "hurricane of critiques") following the second trial when she and Sollecito were acquitted?

  15. #175

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,759
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    As I said, as I understand it - and again, I don't think it's meant for us to understand - "no one has been able to explain logically and convincingly how she could have known what she described". I'm sure that if, as you say, it can easily be explained, then her lawyers will do so.

    All italian sentences come with long and detailed explanations on each and every point, so whether an argument is believed or reject and why is put on paper. If her lawyers explain to the court how Knox could say what she said, and the court decides to reject the explanation, they will have to point out the law and the logic that guided them.
    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    Knox conviction for defamation is definitive, which means it went throu three trials and her laywer troup was not able to overturn it.
    It also means that her declarations were considered not coerced.

    Why? Why would italian courts and judges (three different sets) consider her statements not coerced, if, as you say, they clearly were?
    Awareness regarding false confessions and understanding of the causes for such confessions differ by location and judicial system. False confessions can occur even without blatant coercion, and in some places, confessions are still seen is superseding all other evidence (or lack thereof). Again, I am not suggesting that Knox is innocent or that the courts were wrong to convict her, only that the police procedure in her case was apparently not ideal and that her confession could be attributable to that.

  16. #176
    Internet Beyotch
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    15,830
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    24455
    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    I've written this before.
    Yes, you have. But repeating something over and over doesn't make it true.

    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    When Knox made her initial statements, investigations did not have suspects and had not taken turns yet. So the police could have never indicated Lumumba as a suspect (there's proof of the proceding of the investigation).

    Knox, talking to the police, indicated Lumumba as the killer and placed herself in the house while the crime was occurring.
    The lie about Lumumba however is not an issue in her murder conviction.
    As I understand it, in placing herself in the house while (supposedly) Lumumba was killink Kercher, Knox described precisely in detail what happened to the victim: so far no one has been able to explain logically and convincingly how she could have known what she described, hadn't she been there.
    And this is a prime example. I have read many articles about the case and none of them agree with this statement. They all say that what Knox said did not include information that no one but the killer knew and many of them said that the information was fed to her by the police.

    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    Of course, once you've been instructed on italian law, on the science that is involved, on every piece of paper ever written on this case by expertises, prosecutors, lawyers and judges, every testimony (word by word), the complete timeline, and also juridical science - pro and cons of the rules, how and why they might work best, in what country.
    Then you can decide if the rules (as a whole) are unjust, and/or if they weren't followed.
    No. Just like I do no have to know how to do a triple axel to be able to critique one, I do not have to be a lawyer and expert in the Italian criminal justice system to know injustice when I see it.

    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    I have good reason to believe Italy is heavily corrupted, and that usually the people denying it are ready to contribute to it or have already.
    And yet we are supposed to believe that in this case everything is being done properly and that the conviction of Knox is sound. Sorry, don't buy it.

    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    I have, however, no good reason to believe that Knox sentence will not be just, as I said: as just as humanly possible.
    Because nothing in the scenario suggests it.
    I have no reason to believe the judges are incompetent. No reason to believe they'll convict her if the science represents that scenario as impossible, no reason to believe they'll convict her if there's doubt, no reason to believe Knox is not well represented, no reason to believe she'll exploit every possible defense line and no reason to believe she'll be carefully heard.
    There is EVERY reason to believe that Knox will not get justice. It's a classic case of "we screwed up in the beginning so now we have to scramble to make it seem like we didn't."

    You see this happening everywhere, not just Italy. It's human nature to not want to admit you screwed up and to cling to your original version of how the crime went down. There are people here in the US who have been convicted of crimes they clearly didn't commit that have another suspect who is a much more viable suspect yet the justice system refuses to look at that other suspect because to do so would be to admit they did something wrong the first time.

    And I see that happening in Italy with this case as well. At least Guede is in jail for the murder even if there is a blind determination to put Knox and Sollecito there too.

    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    I think it's pointless and harmuful to get into details.
    So I guess this means this will be your last post on the subject.
    Actual bumper sticker series: Jesus is my co-pilot. Satan is my financial advisor. Budha is my therapist. L. Ron Hubbard owes me $50.

  17. #177
    Prick Admin
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Having a kiki
    Posts
    42,401
    vCash
    506
    Rep Power
    25599
    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
    Let's leave aside the fact that she made the statements under coercion.

    Do you really think that people should be imprisoned for slander?
    When you falsely accuse someone of as serious a crime as murder, then yes.
    To think that fun is simple fun, while earnest things are earnest, proves all too plain that neither one thou truthfully discernest.

  18. #178

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Thankfukky watching skating
    Posts
    13,671
    vCash
    317
    Rep Power
    41192
    Slander & libel are civil matters & usually carry a monetary sentence. The fact that her victim suffered loss of reputation & stress would or should add to the amount. I've never heard what kind of judgement was assessed.

  19. #179

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    West of the 5th...
    Posts
    29,338
    vCash
    100
    Rep Power
    41928
    Slander and libel are civil matters in the US. They might not be in other countries.
    Haunting the Princess of Pink since 20/07/11...

  20. #180
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    17,244
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by allezfred View Post
    When you falsely accuse someone of as serious a crime as murder, then yes.
    So, do you know, for a fact, that her words were not coerced, led to, or misrepresented? Did she deliberately lie? Do you know? Do any of us? If the police suggested that Lumumba was the killer and she, after hours and days of interrogation, in a language she is not fluent in, went along with it, is SHE lying? Or is she confused? Did she understand what she stated? Was she asked something in Italian, that she half understood and answered without really knowing what she was accusing Lumumba of? She had no lawyer to explain anything to her.

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •