Amanda Knox's murder conviction overturned by Italian court

First topic message reminder :

Italy's highest court on Friday overturned the guilty verdicts against Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito in the 2007 murder of British student Meredith Kercher.

The court acquitted Knox and Sollecito in the murder of Meredith Kercher, a 21-year-old exchange student who was found dead in the home she shared with Knox and two other roommates in the Italian city of Perugia.

In November 2007, Meredith Kercher was discovered stabbed in the neck on her bed in the Perugia apartment. Investigators alleged that Knox, then 20 years old, and Sollecito killed Kerchner along with Rudy Guede, an Ivory Coast national raised in Perugia. Knox and Sollecito have always maintained their innocence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/amanda-knox-trial_n_6934608.html

Nems wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Who said she lied?  The press, right?  

This is like that poor guy who went to Aruba and his gf disappeared...his name was Gary Giordano, look him up.  He was vilified in the press, and held for about three months, and nothing.  The press went crazy with stories, all based upon the police side...stuff made up, but because it got into the mainstream media, everyone took it as gospel.

That's a carbon copy of the Knox case.

She lied when she told police Lamumba killed Meredith

Yes, but why then would she protect Guede if she was there with him? She told the police that she was there with Lumumba instead. She owed Guede nothing - she barely knew him. The police mentioned Lumumba first - they asked her about the text message on her phone or something. I think she got a bit freaked out or something.

Has anyone thought about why Raffaele would take part in the murder of a girl he barely knew? He had only known Amanda for a week or so, so why on earth would he get involved in something like that for a girl he only just met?

Nems wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Guardian wrote:He told the Observer: “This is not good for justice, I think it shows the power available for rich people, she’s American and rich. For a country like Italy this is not good. I think there were diplomatic problems with the US and it makes things difficult with the US so they let her free.

Yes, it's the same old argument that Fehrman made.  Because a person gets all of the rights they deserves is never a wrong.  It is the comparison that makes it appear that way.

The poor do not receive all of the rights that they deserve because they cannot afford it.  There is always someone, like Mark Ferhman, who will miss the logic of this.

Plus, it appears that Patrick Lumumba has a bit of an ax to grind.  As Raggs said, the press is mostly responsible.  There are enough make-believe stories about the Knox case out there to write a dozen books.

If innocent why did she lie bout Lumumba ? That's what makes me think at the very least she knows more than she is telling. I think she was there when Meredith died. Wasn't she off buying cleaning stuff soon after the murder too?

That's what I think nems
She knows exactly what happened and was most probably there.

eddie wrote:

Nems wrote:

If innocent why did she lie bout Lumumba ? That's what makes me think at the very least she knows more than she is telling. I think she was there when Meredith died. Wasn't she off buying cleaning stuff soon after the murder too?

That's what I think nems
She knows exactly what happened and was most probably there.

So do you think that she told the truth about being at the house herself even though she lied about Lumumba being there?

Nems wrote:She lied when she told police Lamumba killed Meredith

Meh, she said something about Lamumba.  You can never tell with the press.  It's an adversarial system, so it behooves the authorities to spin the story their way.  The press gives it another spin.

I don't know, say a man and a woman are accused of something, anything, by the police:

The man and woman say: We had a light dinner and shared a glass of wine, before strolling back to our hotel.  On the way home, the storm hit and we took shelter under the awning of that building over there.  There were four other people who ducked under the awning with us for cover.

The police say: We think they were drunk--they admit to drinking--and they admit to attempting to hide in a building we suspect is used by drug dealers.  Another four people--probably drug users and their customers--were with them.

The press says: The police allege they are ringleaders in big-time drug trafficking and were probably high on illegal substances at the time of the crime.  An unconfirmed report says that they have admitted parts of the crime, were consuming drugs and were highly intoxicated.

Cases are built of bricks and mortar (facts and spin), and when you run out of bricks, you use more mortar.  This is true of police (probably worse with them as they are trained in how to testify) and it is certainly true of lawyers.  I think the Supreme Court probably just cleaned up the piles of shit the cops left all around.

Raggamuffin wrote:

risingsun wrote:

But put yourself in their position.  Their beloved daughter is murdered, dreadfully.   They are told that more than one person did it, and three people were found guilty.  Now two of them have been found not guilty so they know there is someone else out there who did it.   Because they then express grief about that, LW then says the above.  Utterly and completely disgusting.

Well maybe they do think that someone is out there who hasn't been convicted, but I still don't get why they appear to be blaming those two. They are possibly angry at the wrong people. The only person who can tell them what happened is Guede, and in eight years' time maybe he will. He seems to change his story a lot though.

THAT hate-filled lonely old harridan sassy finds me "Utterly and completely disgusting."   !?!

NOTHING new or unexpected there, is there peep's !   AS sassy showed so often last year, her baseless insane and inexplicable hatred towards me saw her continually attacking, slandering and libeling me; trying to falsely accuse me of various criminal or sleazy activities that I've never done nor been party to; and when that failed she then decided and manouvred her way into destroying friendships between various parties on here..

MACHIAVELLI would be proud, to see how the mendacious little weasel operates.

AND NOW AGAIN, within weeks of her slithering her slimy way back on here, the ever demented and dirt crazy sassy is once again up to her old tricks and evil ways ~ willfully attacking me, Nems, FTL (as per usual..), and without any apparent cause, as in this case.

CAN'T SAY y'all weren't warned a few weeks back what to expect if she were allowed to return from her self-imposed dummy-spitting exile..
AND SO it comes to pass.    

Oh do go and buy some false teeth you gummy hate filled old poodle.

Actually tbf Wolf, sassy hasn't had any run-ins with FTL lately that I know of and only a couple of posts between her and nems have passed. Nothing that bad really.

Why don't you let it drop now? Otherwise wars just carry on and on....

eddie wrote:Actually tbf Wolf, sassy hasn't had any run-ins with FTL lately that I know of  and only a couple of posts between her and nems have passed. Nothing that bad really.

Why don't you let it drop now? Otherwise wars just carry on and on....

Worth remembering though Edds that FTL doesn't post much and I have chosen to let most of the snidey and barbed comments aimed at me go over my head.

@Lone Wolf look on the positives at least she isn't stalking you now. If you want to incense her, ignore her she cant stand not being the centre of attention x

This thread is supposed to be about Amanda Knox.

Raggamuffin wrote:This thread is supposed to be about Amanda Knox.

Ah the way of forums, they often go off track
As to Foxy Knoxy, I still think she knows a lot more

Nems wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This thread is supposed to be about Amanda Knox.

Ah the way of forums, they often go off track
As to Foxy Knoxy, I still think she knows a lot more

Why do you think that?

There are certainly a lot of unanswered questions, and there are many websites out there devoted to the murder of Meredith Kercher - some which support Amanda and others which don't. It's nearly impossible to actually figure out what are facts as opposed to opinion.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nems wrote:

Ah the way of forums, they often go off track
As to Foxy Knoxy, I still think she knows a lot more

Why do you think that?

There are certainly a lot of unanswered questions, and there are many websites out there devoted to the murder of Meredith Kercher - some which support Amanda and others which don't. It's nearly impossible to actually figure out what are facts as opposed to opinion.

I know, if Im honest Rags I probably cant get past my own opinion of her to be objective

Nems wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why do you think that?

There are certainly a lot of unanswered questions, and there are many websites out there devoted to the murder of Meredith Kercher - some which support Amanda and others which don't. It's nearly impossible to actually figure out what are facts as opposed to opinion.

I know, if Im honest Rags I probably cant get past my own opinion of her to be objective

I suppose I'm the same. I just can't see a motive. I can't see why she would meet some bloke, and then a week later decide to play some kind of kinky game with him and another bloke she barely knew, involving her flatmate against her will. If the intention was not to kill Meredith, why would she risk everything like that? Meredith would have reported her and she would have been arrested or chucked out of the country. If the intention was to kill her - well why?

Perhaps it wasn't intentional? Perhap,it was a kinky game gone wrong? Perhaps she disliked Meredith, who after all, was not of the same ilk as Knox.
Wasn't Knox a bit of a loose woman?

Tbh rags, when people are a tad sociopathic or "odd" it's hard to get your head round them, and you certainly can't try to begin to think like them.

eddie wrote:Perhaps it wasn't intentional? Perhap,it was a kinky game gone wrong? Perhaps she disliked Meredith, who after all, was not of the same ilk as Knox.
Wasn't Knox a bit of a loose woman?

Tbh rags, when people are a tad sociopathic or "odd" it's hard to get your head round them, and you certainly can't try to begin to think like them.

Nobody has suggested that Meredith herself would be keen to take part in a kinky game, so it would have been a malicious type of game I guess. The presence of a knife means it wouldn't have been an innocent game.

Loose woman? Hmmmm. Well she was young and pretty, she had boyfriends I guess. She seemed keen on Raffaele at the time, and there was nothing to suggest that she was loose in the sense that she was into kinky games involving knives. I get the impression that she was quite a serious kind of girl generally.

Amanda has always denied that she disliked Meredith, and that she was her friend. I get the impression that Meredith wasn't that keen on Amanda though and that she hung around mainly with other English girls.

The thing I simply cannot get past Rags is that:

At the time Knox, now 27, told investigators that she had “covered her ears as he [Lumumba] killed” Kercher in the bedroom of the flat the women shared.


Now why would anyone, who now claims she wasn't even there, say that? And he had a cast iron alibi luckily for him.

risingsun wrote:The thing I simply cannot get past Rags is that:

At the time Knox, now 27, told investigators that she had “covered her ears as he [Lumumba] killed” Kercher in the bedroom of the flat the women shared.


Now why would anyone, who now claims she wasn't even there, say that?  And he had a cast iron alibi luckily for him.

Yes, that's what her statement said - the same statement where she named Lumumba. In fact, she signed two different statements.

It's very puzzling because, as I've said, she didn't just accuse Lumumba, she also placed herself at the scene, so it was a kind of confession. The next day she wrote a letter to the police which was a bit surreal tbh - full of confusion about what she knew to be a fact and what she wasn't sure of. She says that the police suggested a lot of this stuff to her, and it was late, she was tired and stressed, and she sort of ended up trying to imagine the scenario to the extent that she thought it had actually happened.

Raggamuffin wrote:

risingsun wrote:The thing I simply cannot get past Rags is that:

At the time Knox, now 27, told investigators that she had “covered her ears as he [Lumumba] killed” Kercher in the bedroom of the flat the women shared.


Now why would anyone, who now claims she wasn't even there, say that?  And he had a cast iron alibi luckily for him.

Yes, that's what her statement said - the same statement where she named Lumumba. In fact, she signed two different statements.

It's very puzzling because, as I've said, she didn't just accuse Lumumba, she also placed herself at the scene, so it was a kind of confession. The next day she wrote a letter to the police which was a bit surreal tbh - full of confusion about what she knew to be a fact and what she wasn't sure of. She says that the police suggested a lot of this stuff to her, and it was late, she was tired and stressed, and she sort of ended up trying to imagine the scenario to the extent that she thought it had actually happened.

This, from a not exactly disinterested party...the police.  I repeat, the legal system is an adversarial system, and it behooves participants to spin everything in their favor.

The confusion is to be expected.  No one is working to clarify the story.  The effort of everyone is 99% spin and 1% fact.  The confusion even had Amanda writing letters, sensing that nobody was even interested in the truth.  As you say, Raggs: "...she sort of ended up trying to imagine the scenario to the extent that she thought it had actually happened."  She was the only person not being paid to pile on more bullshit.  The police?  The prosecutors?  They are busy fabricating a script that they can take to court.

This is a paradigm case of how the adversarial system foments dishonesty.  That, in turn, is why no one likes lawyers.  Their job is to be a handmaiden of dishonesty.  The press compounds the problem because they introduce a new element, directing attention away from the truth also: profit from the entertainment value of the story.

A man named Gary Giordano was jailed for nothing for three months, because ABC News wanted him to be guilty in the same type of scenario as a previous Aruba incident, that of Natalee Holloway.  It turned out the man never did anything immoral or illegal, but here was the attitude of the police: "While we recognize that Mr. Giordano enjoys an infamous reputation, the Annapolis arrest was simply a matter of effective police work in response to citizen complaints," Annapolis Chief Michael Pristoop said at the time...prompted by ABC News, truth be told.  "Infamous reputation?"  The man did nothing wrong.  This is how the adversarial system corrupts people paid to operate according to its dictates.

The case of Amanda Knox is much ado about nothing.  The police have to justify their paychecks, and so the are constantly looking to incarcerate innocent people just walking down the street, going about their own business.  That's the system.  The police are not held responsible for the ultimate outcome.  But, we cannot ignore that the job they are doing is to bring grief into the lives of others. If they actually put away a bad guy...well, that is a happy coincidence.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, that's what her statement said - the same statement where she named Lumumba. In fact, she signed two different statements.

It's very puzzling because, as I've said, she didn't just accuse Lumumba, she also placed herself at the scene, so it was a kind of confession. The next day she wrote a letter to the police which was a bit surreal tbh - full of confusion about what she knew to be a fact and what she wasn't sure of. She says that the police suggested a lot of this stuff to her, and it was late, she was tired and stressed, and she sort of ended up trying to imagine the scenario to the extent that she thought it had actually happened.

This, from a not exactly disinterested party...the police.  I repeat, the legal system is an adversarial system, and it behooves participants to spin everything in their favor.

The confusion is to be expected.  No one is working to clarify the story.  The effort of everyone is 99% spin and 1% fact.  The confusion even had Amanda writing letters, sensing that nobody was even interested in the truth.  As you say, Raggs: "...she sort of ended up trying to imagine the scenario to the extent that she thought it had actually happened."  She was the only person not being paid to pile on more bullshit.  The police?  The prosecutors?  They are busy fabricating a script that they can take to court.

This is a paradigm case of how the adversarial system foments dishonesty.  That, in turn, is why no one likes lawyers.  Their job is to be a handmaiden of dishonesty.  The press compounds the problem because they introduce a new element, directing attention away from the truth also: profit from the entertainment value of the story.

A man named Gary Giordano was jailed for nothing for three months, because ABC News wanted him to be guilty in the same type of scenario as a previous Aruba incident, that of Natalee Holloway.  It turned out the man never did anything immoral or illegal, but here was the attitude of the police: "While we recognize that Mr. Giordano enjoys an infamous reputation, the Annapolis arrest was simply a matter of effective police work in response to citizen complaints," Annapolis Chief Michael Pristoop said at the time...prompted by ABC News, truth be told.  "Infamous reputation?"  The man did nothing wrong.  This is how the adversarial system corrupts people paid to operate according to its dictates.

The case of Amanda Knox is much ado about nothing.  The police have to justify their paychecks, and so the are constantly looking to incarcerate innocent people just walking down the street, going about their own business.  That's the system.  The police are not held responsible for the ultimate outcome.  But they are only doing their job if they bring grief into the lives of others.

This accusation and confession which Amanda made was in the early hours of 6th November - a few days after the murder. Apparently, she had gone to the police station with Raffaele because the police wanted to interview him. What I don't get is why they latched onto those two so soon. They couldn't have got much in the way of forensic evidence - that came much later. They had no motive to speak of at that time. Why be so persistent with Amanda?

Why in particular would they suspect Raffaele? He was just Amanda's boyfriend - nothing to do with Meredith really, and yet they arrested him on 6 November as well.

Meredith's mother is making some rather contradictory statements. On the one hand, she feels let down because Amanda and Raffaele have been acquitted, and on the other hand she says that no one seems to be able to get to the truth, and she still doesn't know who killed Meredith. It's unclear whether she actually believes that Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/11502544/Meredith-Kerchers-mother-We-have-waited-in-vain.html

She also said that she's going to try to speak to Rudy Guede, if that's possible. I think that's a good idea. Other than having to confess himself, he has nothing to lose. He has no appeals left, and he now knows that Amanda and Raffaele will never be convicted again.

Raggamuffin wrote:This accusation and confession which Amanda made was in the early hours of 6th November - a few days after the murder. Apparently, she had gone to the police station with Raffaele because the police wanted to interview him. What I don't get is why they latched onto those two so soon. They couldn't have got much in the way of forensic evidence - that came much later. They had no motive to speak of at that time. Why be so persistent with Amanda?

Why in particular would they suspect Raffaele? He was just Amanda's boyfriend - nothing to do with Meredith really, and yet they arrested him on 6 November as well.

Does anybody have a certified copy of a transcript of the Interview?  I thought not.

It is understandable why the police would want to interview Amanda.  She was the roommate.  She could provide all of the background details.  Plus, a roommate--like a husband or a wife--is always under suspicion until an alibi is established.  Raffaele, as the boyfriend, is inevitable.

What you want to know most of all is...what was said at the so-called interview?  The last people we should believe are the police...it's an adversarial system and they have a stake in the game, fgs.  And a certified transcript--the truth--is exactly what the police are withholding.  Does anyone see now the SET-UP as it unfolds?

Raggamuffin wrote:Meredith's mother is making some rather contradictory statements. On the one hand, she feels let down because Amanda and Raffaele have been acquitted, and on the other hand she says that no one seems to be able to get to the truth, and she still doesn't know who killed Meredith. It's unclear whether she actually believes that Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith.

She's feeling the same frustration we all feel....No one is looking out for the truth!  Again, that's because it is an adversarial system.  Under that system, it's not the job of the authorities to find the truth...only to bring pain into the lives of others.  If they happen to nail a bad guy in the process...it's only good fortune.

Raggamuffin wrote:She also said that she's going to try to speak to Rudy Guede, if that's possible. I think that's a good idea. Other than having to confess himself, he has nothing to lose. He has no appeals left, and he now knows that Amanda and Raffaele will never be convicted again.

Not so fast.  Guede is suffering from the same human emotion we all feel when we do something wrong...everybody hates me.  Why make it worse? he will ask himself.  It's called reduction of cognitive dissonance.  Or, misery loves company...perhaps he will implicate others in a misguided effort to spread around the guilt.  Actually, my bet is he won't talk to her...particularly if he's still got a good lawyer.  Alternatively, he will tell the story most likely to exculpate him.  But he's not the brightest bulb on the tree...he will need a lawyer before talking, even now.

Anyway, the last thing you can expect from him is the full truth.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This accusation and confession which Amanda made was in the early hours of 6th November - a few days after the murder. Apparently, she had gone to the police station with Raffaele because the police wanted to interview him. What I don't get is why they latched onto those two so soon. They couldn't have got much in the way of forensic evidence - that came much later. They had no motive to speak of at that time. Why be so persistent with Amanda?

Why in particular would they suspect Raffaele? He was just Amanda's boyfriend - nothing to do with Meredith really, and yet they arrested him on 6 November as well.

Does anybody have a certified copy of a transcript of the Interview?  I thought not.

It is understandable why the police would want to interview Amanda.  She was the roommate.  She could provide all of the background details.  Plus, a roommate--like a husband or a wife--is always under suspicion until an alibi is established.  Raffaele, as the boyfriend, is inevitable.

What you want to know most of all is...what was said at the so-called interview?  The last people we should believe are the police...it's an adversarial system and they have a stake in the game, fgs.  And a certified transcript--the truth--is exactly what the police are withholding.  Does anyone see now the SET-UP as it unfolds?

There is no transcript - I don't think that particular interview was recorded. Certainly no recording has ever materialised.

She was interviewed initially as a witness, and I'm not sure what was said, but that all seemed to change on the night of 5 November when she was treated more as a suspect. I'm not sure if that all stemmed from the text message she sent Lumumba saying "see you later", but even so, it's a huge leap to assume that she meant she was going murder her flatmate with her boss.

Meredith's other friends were interviewed, and none of them reported any hostility from the police.

Two of the flatmates were away, so I presume their alibis had been checked. I think the lads who lived in the flat downstairs were away too. One of them was Meredith's boyfriend apparently.

Even so, it seems odd to latch onto two people who happened to be in town at the time.

Original Quill wrote:

Not so fast.  Guede is suffering from the same human emotion we all feel when we do something wrong...everybody hates me.  Why make it worse? he will ask himself.  It's called reduction of cognitive dissonance.  Or, misery loves company...perhaps he will implicate others in a misguided effort to spread around the guilt.  Actually, my bet is he won't talk to her...particularly if he's still got a good lawyer.  Alternatively, he will tell the story most likely to exculpate him.  But he's not the brightest bulb on the tree...he will need a lawyer before talking, even now.

Anyway, the last thing you can expect from him is the full truth.

That's what I think too - as I said, he would need to confess to Meredith's mother if they were to get anywhere. Meredith's mother would also need to downplay her own feelings about him, which would be hard for her.

However, it's probably worth a try - she has nothing to lose now.

Id certainly want to see Guede if I were her mother.
Nothing like a face to face to gauge the truth.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Does anybody have a certified copy of a transcript of the Interview?  I thought not.

It is understandable why the police would want to interview Amanda.  She was the roommate.  She could provide all of the background details.  Plus, a roommate--like a husband or a wife--is always under suspicion until an alibi is established.  Raffaele, as the boyfriend, is inevitable.

What you want to know most of all is...what was said at the so-called interview?  The last people we should believe are the police...it's an adversarial system and they have a stake in the game, fgs.  And a certified transcript--the truth--is exactly what the police are withholding.  Does anyone see now the SET-UP as it unfolds?

There is no transcript - I don't think that particular interview was recorded. Certainly no recording has ever materialised.

She was interviewed initially as a witness, and I'm not sure what was said, but that all seemed to change on the night of 5 November when she was treated more as a suspect. I'm not sure if that all stemmed from the text message she sent Lumumba saying "see you later", but even so, it's a huge leap to assume that she meant she was going murder her flatmate with her boss.

Meredith's other friends were interviewed, and none of them reported any hostility from the police.

Two of the flatmates were away, so I presume their alibis had been checked. I think the lads who lived in the flat downstairs were away too. One of them was Meredith's boyfriend apparently.

Even so, it seems odd to latch onto two people who happened to be in town at the time.

I would not expect to find any hostility from the police.  As I've been trying to say, it is the adversarial system, not something personal.  Police latch on to one suspect, whether there is any factual basis for it, or they just get a "hunch", but from that point on they go from trying to learn facts, to trying to cross over and build a case.  They are human problem solvers, and just like anyone they try to develop hypotheses, and then go about proving it.  If they followed the scientific method, they would keep an open mind and give it up when the null hypothesis appeared.  But they are schooled by lawyers, and word games are a part of the approach.

Did you ever see a film titled, My Cousin Vinny?  Long story short, two New York guys are held in Alabama, charged with murder of a Quik-Stop clerk.  Now, New Yorkers have a habit of repeating something in shock, to express disbelief.  When the cop tells the accused he is being charged with murder of the clerk, the New Yorker cries out:  I shot the clerk?!  I shot the clerk?!  I shot the clerk?!!    All in a surprised, questioning tone.  At trial the cop, making use of what doesn't appear on the record, testified, "He confessed...three times, actually."  That's why these camera on cops are giving a revealing picture of how they do business.

What you just described about November 5th would qualify as the cross-over point.  Something happened then to make them suspect her.  From that time on, they are just collecting props for the script. That would account for the fake amount of DNA on the knife...it was just make-weight.

eddie wrote:Id certainly want to see Guede if I were her mother.
Nothing like a face to face to gauge the truth.

Maybe...but some people are very good liars. Most of the time you hear what you are already predisposed to believe. A good liar finds out what your buttons are and pushes them.

Once a mind is made up, there's very little changing it.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There is no transcript - I don't think that particular interview was recorded. Certainly no recording has ever materialised.

She was interviewed initially as a witness, and I'm not sure what was said, but that all seemed to change on the night of 5 November when she was treated more as a suspect. I'm not sure if that all stemmed from the text message she sent Lumumba saying "see you later", but even so, it's a huge leap to assume that she meant she was going murder her flatmate with her boss.

Meredith's other friends were interviewed, and none of them reported any hostility from the police.

Two of the flatmates were away, so I presume their alibis had been checked. I think the lads who lived in the flat downstairs were away too. One of them was Meredith's boyfriend apparently.

Even so, it seems odd to latch onto two people who happened to be in town at the time.

I would not expect to find any hostility from the police.  As I've been trying to say, it is the adversarial system, not something personal.  Police latch on to one suspect, whether there is any factual basis for it, or they just get a "hunch", but from that point on they go from trying to learn facts, to trying to cross over and build a case.  They are human problem solvers, and just like anyone they try to develop hypotheses, and then go about proving it.  If they followed the scientific method, they would keep an open mind and give it up when the null hypothesis appeared.  But they are schooled by lawyers, and word games are a part of the approach.

Did you ever see a film titled, My Cousin Vinny?  Long story short, two New York guys are held in Alabama, charged with murder of a Quik-Stop clerk.  Now, New Yorkers have a habit of repeating something in shock, to express disbelief.  When the cop tells the accused he is being charged with murder of the clerk, the New Yorker cries out:  I shot the clerk?!  I shot the clerk?!  I shot the clerk?!!    All in a surprised, questioning tone.  At trial the cop, making use of what doesn't appear on the record, testified, "He confessed...three times, actually."  That's why these camera on cops are giving a revealing picture of how they do business.

What you just described about November 5th would qualify as the cross-over point.  Something happened then to make them suspect her.  From that time on, they are just collecting props for the script.  That would account for the fake amount of DNA on the knife...it was just make-weight.

I haven't seen that film, but I take your point. The only problem of course is that Amanda did sign those confessions, which included the accusation against Lumumba.

There was a lot in the press about her reaction to the murder - the alleged cartwheels at the police station (something she denied), the kissing outside the house, the buying of lingerie, the alleged lack of emotion, etc. I'm not sure if that had any influence on the police, but it certainly managed to convince a lot of people that she was guilty.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I would not expect to find any hostility from the police.  As I've been trying to say, it is the adversarial system, not something personal.  Police latch on to one suspect, whether there is any factual basis for it, or they just get a "hunch", but from that point on they go from trying to learn facts, to trying to cross over and build a case.  They are human problem solvers, and just like anyone they try to develop hypotheses, and then go about proving it.  If they followed the scientific method, they would keep an open mind and give it up when the null hypothesis appeared.  But they are schooled by lawyers, and word games are a part of the approach.

Did you ever see a film titled, My Cousin Vinny?  Long story short, two New York guys are held in Alabama, charged with murder of a Quik-Stop clerk.  Now, New Yorkers have a habit of repeating something in shock, to express disbelief.  When the cop tells the accused he is being charged with murder of the clerk, the New Yorker cries out:  I shot the clerk?!  I shot the clerk?!  I shot the clerk?!!    All in a surprised, questioning tone.  At trial the cop, making use of what doesn't appear on the record, testified, "He confessed...three times, actually."  That's why these camera on cops are giving a revealing picture of how they do business.

What you just described about November 5th would qualify as the cross-over point.  Something happened then to make them suspect her.  From that time on, they are just collecting props for the script.  That would account for the fake amount of DNA on the knife...it was just make-weight.

I haven't seen that film, but I take your point. The only problem of course is that Amanda did sign those confessions, which included the accusation against Lumumba.

And who prepared those written confessions?  Don't tell me; I already know.  How convenient of them.

I want to hear the spontaneous words, and only an untouched recording or a certified copy of a transcript will do.  We get so used to (because we see it on TV so often) accepting substitutes (a signed statement) that we forget what we are looking for: the spontaneous discussion that led up to the admission, not a contract document prepared after the fact.  That's the only way we will know it was not fraudulently induced or altered.

Raggamuffin wrote:There was a lot in the press about her reaction to the murder - the alleged cartwheels at the police station (something she denied), the kissing outside the house, the buying of lingerie, the alleged lack of emotion, etc. I'm not sure if that had any influence on the police, but it certainly managed to convince a lot of people that she was guilty.

You are making my point for me.  That is the press, dressing up a good script.  It proves they can sell a lot of newspapers.  It says nothing about Amanda's involvement.  Seriously--take a look.  Those reports are, at best, innuendos or presumptions of the claim, not the fact itself.  Very often I draw a different innuendo from the very same fact.  But we are so used to being led by the nose that we just follow along without questioning.

Europe is famous, if unconscionable, for their wild, yellow press, making it worse than the US or Japan.  But all of them want to sell newspapers, and they don't care a wit about how many lives they ruin.  It's just business.  I can tell you for a fact that no Judge would allow a newspaper article into evidence in a trial or proceeding.  That is precisely because they are so unreliable.

The truth is only the truth itself.  Don't ever accept substitutes, especially if your life depends upon it..

     

sassy STILL remains the most fucked-up-in-the-head individual on here, ever, irregardless of the couple of her remaining "friends" still wanting to 'defend the indefensible' in regard to her ongoing attempts at abusing, victimising and libeling various innocent members on here...




AS FOR the subjects of the victims and suspects of the O/P of this thread:    Let's not forget that both Kercher, Knox and various suspects and hangers on were ALL off-their face 'spoit brat' sdelf-serving hard drug addicts, living in filth and squalor at the time of the murder..

NOT really a single nice or likable person amongst the whole bunch at the time, was there  !?!


       

I think sassy has been conducting herself quite nicely these days, sticking to the subject and posting relevant posts. Anyway, this thread isn't about her.

I think all of the news media noise about Knox, and drugs and life-style, was just hype prompted by the police to smear the reputations of the accused before trial, and picked up by the press as delicious gossip, which sells newspapers.

I agree with your instincts, Bee—that it traces back to some pretty 'dirty minds'—but I don't think the dirty minds are those of Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Only the interests of the police and the press were served by printing such smears.

Lone Wolf wrote:      

sassy STILL remains the most fucked-up-in-the-head individual on here, ever, irregardless of the couple of her remaining "friends" still wanting to 'defend the indefensible' in regard to her ongoing attempts at abusing, victimising and libeling various innocent members on here...




AS FOR the subjects of the victims and suspects of the O/P of this thread:    Let's not forget that both Kercher, Knox and various suspects and hangers on were ALL off-their face 'spoit brat' sdelf-serving hard drug addicts, living in filth and squalor at the time of the murder..

NOT really a single nice or likable person amongst the whole bunch at the time, was there  !?!


       

I don't think they were hard drug addicts - a bit of cannabis maybe. Meredith and Amanda lived in an old cottage which was divided into two flats. It was fairly typical student house inside. Raffaele had his own flat.

Now that those two have been acquitted, I wonder if the police will look for anyone else. I don't think the Kerchers will be happy if it's just forgotten about because they believe there was more than one person involved. Perhaps the police will rethink their theory that there was more than one person involved and see if it's possible that Guede acted alone.

As for Amanda and Raffaele, they have nothing more to fight for, unless they decide to claim compensation. I wonder if they will express any kind of anger about what happened. They've been pretty calm about it in public until now.

Raggamuffin wrote:Now that those two have been acquitted, I wonder if the police will look for anyone else. I don't think the Kerchers will be happy if it's just forgotten about because they believe there was more than one person involved. Perhaps the police will rethink their theory that there was more than one person involved and see if it's possible that Guede acted alone.

As for Amanda and Raffaele, they have nothing more to fight for, unless they decide to claim compensation. I wonder if they will express any kind of anger about what happened. They've been pretty calm about it in public until now.

Calm?.....I'd say relieved.....and can't believe their luck.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Now that those two have been acquitted, I wonder if the police will look for anyone else. I don't think the Kerchers will be happy if it's just forgotten about because they believe there was more than one person involved. Perhaps the police will rethink their theory that there was more than one person involved and see if it's possible that Guede acted alone.

As for Amanda and Raffaele, they have nothing more to fight for, unless they decide to claim compensation. I wonder if they will express any kind of anger about what happened. They've been pretty calm about it in public until now.

Calm?.....I'd say relieved.....and can't believe their luck.

I mean during all the interviews they've done since they were released from prison. They've never really expressed any anger. Of course they're relieved, but that will pass, and then what?

Yes, they have never been cantankerous or resentful.  It sort of puts the lie to the picture given out by the police and press.

Original Quill wrote:Yes, they have never been cantankerous or resentful.  It sort of puts the lie to the picture given out by the police and press.

Do you not think that's a bit unnatural though? If they are innocent, they must feel angry about the last seven years or so. They've been banged up, vilified, called murderers, and have been living in fear that they might go back to prison.

Original Quill wrote:Yes, they have never been cantankerous or resentful.  It sort of puts the lie to the picture given out by the police and press.

Seriously????? If I were guilty and had gotten off Id be behaving in exactly the way they are behaving now!!!

Weird how two people see things totally differently.......

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Yes, they have never been cantankerous or resentful.  It sort of puts the lie to the picture given out by the police and press.

Do you not think that's a bit unnatural though? If they are innocent, they must feel angry about the last seven years or so. They've been banged up, vilified, called murderers, and have been living in fear that they might go back to prison.

Anger is a wasted emotion. Haven't you learned?

I've seen Amanda crying a few times, no doubt from all the stress. That seems natural enough. Who am I to try script their reactions to all the turmoil for them; I haven't lived their lives for them.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Yes, they have never been cantankerous or resentful.  It sort of puts the lie to the picture given out by the police and press.

Seriously????? If I were guilty and had gotten off Id be behaving in exactly the way they are behaving now!!!

Weird how two people see things totally differently.......

Perhaps you are a bit more excitable in general.  Me, I never go too out there with the highs; and I never drag myself down with the lows.  And that's kinda the way I've seen Amanda take all this.  Ride it out and try to live your life with a steady keel.

No one and nothing can get to you, unless you invite it inside.  I think Amanda knew she had nothing to be or act guilty about, and that gave her strength.  When you've eliminated all doubt inside, the rest is all landscape.  When you are right and you have done your best, there is nothing to get upset about; it's not your doing.  Ride it out, that's all.  I think she's done a good job of that.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Yes, they have never been cantankerous or resentful.  It sort of puts the lie to the picture given out by the police and press.

Seriously????? If I were guilty and had gotten off Id be behaving in exactly the way they are behaving now!!!

Weird how two people see things totally differently.......

Perhaps you are a bit more excitable in general.  Me, I never go too out there with the highs; and I never drag myself down with the lows.  And that's kinda the way I've seen Amanda take all this.  Ride it out and try to live your life with a steady keel.

No one and nothing can get to you, unless you invite it inside.  I think Amanda knew she had nothing to be or act guilty about, and that gave her strength.  When you've eliminated all doubt inside, the rest is all landscape.  When you are right and you have done your best, there is nothing to get upset about; it's not your doing.  Ride it out, that's all.  I think she's done a good job of that.

That's an awful,lot of supposition for a young, hormonal, stressed girl.

I think we've seen two very different people Quill.

And I am actually not that excitAble tbh

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Perhaps you are a bit more excitable in general.  Me, I never go too out there with the highs; and I never drag myself down with the lows.  And that's kinda the way I've seen Amanda take all this.  Ride it out and try to live your life with a steady keel.

No one and nothing can get to you, unless you invite it inside.  I think Amanda knew she had nothing to be or act guilty about, and that gave her strength.  When you've eliminated all doubt inside, the rest is all landscape.  When you are right and you have done your best, there is nothing to get upset about; it's not your doing.  Ride it out, that's all.  I think she's done a good job of that.

That's an awful,lot of supposition for a young, hormonal, stressed girl.

I think we've seen two very different people Quill.

And I am actually not that excitAble tbh

It was just a suggestion...because, as I said earlier, we all see something of what we see in ourselves. You see "a young, hormonal, stressed girl" and I see nothing of the sort. I think she has conducted herself admirably, given what has been visited upon her.

Anyway, the Italian Court came to the correct, and final conclusion. It's over.

No I don't agree with you that's utter crap!
So when you,look at Fred and Rose west and you see two uhinged and evil killers - does that mean you are unhinged and evil?
Sometimes we just see what we see. Period.

Quill you are a clever man but you do come out with utter tosh at times!

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Do you not think that's a bit unnatural though? If they are innocent, they must feel angry about the last seven years or so. They've been banged up, vilified, called murderers, and have been living in fear that they might go back to prison.

Anger is a wasted emotion.  Haven't you learned?  

I've seen Amanda crying a few times, no doubt from all the stress.  That seems natural enough.  Who am I to try script their reactions to all the turmoil for them; I haven't lived their lives for them.

Well they didn't have much choice about how they lived their life for some of that time because they were in prison.

What I mean is that whilst it was going on, they had something to fight for, but now they can relax, and it's often at that time that people get angry or get depressed about what happened to them.

Still, maybe they both have naturally calm demeanour, and that's what made people suspect them in the first place.

For example, I don't think I've heard either of them mention Rudy Guede, but they must really be pissed off with him as he placed them at the scene at one point. Look how angry Lumumba was with Amanda when she did the same to him.

I remember reading that some experts thought she may have psychopathic tendencies and others that she may have some kind of autistic disorder like Aspergers.

You'll have to google it.

eddie wrote:I remember reading that some experts thought she may have psychopathic tendencies and others that she may have some kind of autistic disorder like Aspergers.

You'll have to google it.

What are the chances that both of them have either of those things?

eddie wrote:No I don't agree with you that's utter crap!
So when you,look at Fred and Rose west and you see two uhinged and evil killers - does that mean you are unhinged and evil?
Sometimes we just see what we see. Period.

Quill you are a clever man but you do come out with utter tosh at times!

Fortunately for you, it's not about me.  Lol.

As for your example, Fred and Rose, I have no idea what you are talking about.  But I think I know what you mean: what if the facts show someone is guilty?  With Amanda and Raffaele Sollecito we were talking about a subjective reading, not facts.  If you recall, the state had no facts and was trying to go on demeanor alone.  Trying to read someone's inner feelings from their outward manifestations is nothing but guesswork.  As a result, we tend to read a lot of ourselves into the process—thus my statement.  But it's 100% subjective.

And lo...what have I been saying all along?  That facts trump assumptions.  We were talking about how lawyers make cases: bricks and mortar—or in other words, facts and inferences (remember: when you run out of bricks, you use more mortar?).  You crossed that very line when you went from speculating and inference, to facts.  If the facts show that someone is guilty, what need do you have of inference?

The very reason why we are talking about subjectivity and inference is because the state had no facts in the Knox/Sollecito case.

Raggamuffin wrote:Well they didn't have much choice about how they lived their life for some of that time because they were in prison.

What I mean is that whilst it was going on, they had something to fight for, but now they can relax, and it's often at that time that people get angry or get depressed about what happened to them.

Still, maybe they both have naturally calm demeanour, and that's what made people suspect them in the first place.

I think, through no fault of their own, some tragic events visited them. We can look backward and critique events, but that's us. I can well imagine they do not want to look back on such an ugly episode in their life...at least for now.

For others—those more detached from it—it is worth analyzing how the system fails, and why.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Well they didn't have much choice about how they lived their life for some of that time because they were in prison.

What I mean is that whilst it was going on, they had something to fight for, but now they can relax, and it's often at that time that people get angry or get depressed about what happened to them.

Still, maybe they both have naturally calm demeanour, and that's what made people suspect them in the first place.

I think, through no fault of their own, some tragic events visited them.  We can look backward and critique events, but that's us.  I can well imagine they do not want to look back on such an ugly episode in their life...at least for now.

For others—those more detached from it—it is worth analyzing how the system fails, and why.

Tragic? The murder of Amanda's flatmate was tragic. I wouldn't say that being accused by the police, accused by a murderer, hauled up in court, and imprisoned on some rather flimsy evidence was tragic.

I'm not accusing them of anything Quill, I'm just observing that it's probably not over for them. They will think it is at the moment because they're relieved, but I think the sense of injustice will get to them. Remember they lost much of their youth because of this. What should have been a great adventure for Amanda turned into a nightmare.