Amanda Knox to stand trial again

(126 Posts)

Just announced. Stating that her acquittal was flawed. I wonder if she does have to go? I am sure when watching the acquittal that news said authorities couldn't make her return to Italy if a re-trial did happen.

Chipstick10 Fri 29-Mar-13 15:25:59

I don't have Knox or the boyfriend down as innocents, something stinks IMO.

Here is Raffaele Sollecito's statement to the Police on Nov 5th (the 4th day after the discovery of Meredith's body:

“I’ve known Amanda for a fortnight. She’s been sleeping at my flat since the evening we met. On 1 November, I woke up at about 11 am. I had breakfast with Amanda and then she left. I went back to bed. I got to her place at 1 or 2 pm. Meredith was there but she left in a hurry about 4 pm without saying where she was going. Amanda and I went into town at 6 pm or so but I can’t remember what we did. We were in the town centre until 8.30 or 9 pm. At 9 pm, I went home on my own while Amanda said she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to see some friends. That’s when we said goodbye. I went home, smoked a joint and had dinner but I can’t remember what I ate. At about 11 pm, my dad called on the landline. I remember that Amanda hadn’t come back yet. I surfed the net for another two hours after dad called and only stopped when Amanda got back, at about 1 am, I suppose. I can’t remember what she was wearing or if she was wearing the same clothes she had on when she said goodbye before dinner. I can’t remember if we had sex that night. The following morning, we got up at about 10 am and she told me she wanted to go home, have a shower and change. She left at around 10.30 and I went back to sleep. When Amanda left, she took an empty carrier bag, saying she needed it for her dirty washing. She came back about 11.30 and I remember she had changed her clothes. She had her usual bag with her.”

I think this is the last statement he made. He did not retract it and I'm not sure if he was questioned in court or not.

The first point to mention is that he claimed to be surfing the internet for 2 hours after 11pm and the second is that he said Amanda had not been at his house the whole evening - and was out until 1am. Very strange.

Snazzynewyear Fri 29-Mar-13 19:44:39

I've just bought the John Follain book after reading many good things about it, so I'll be interested to see how what it leaves me thinking.

Snazzy it is a very good book and it left me thinking that AK and RS were involved in Meredith's death in some way.

NicholasTeakozy Sat 30-Mar-13 07:20:20

I surfed the net for another two hours after dad called and only stopped when Amanda got back, at about 1 am, I suppose.

My word, did you not bother reading the evidence which stated the laptop was turned off around 9.30? The police evidence?

The original thread eaned me my first ever deletion on MN, I might have to ignore this subject as it might otherwise get me a ban for troll hunting.

There is no evidence, real or circumstantial, linking Amanda and Raffaele to the murder scene. Anybody thinking otherwise is in dire need of a brain implant.

Portofino Sat 30-Mar-13 08:03:25

It amazes me that noone seems to accept the most likely scenario, that Guede, a known criminal, acted alone, left traces all over the scene then fled the country. He was picked up because he left DNA and fingerprints at the scene. The sex game gone wrong scenario is ludicrous, was not backed up by ANY forensic evidence, and because of info leaked to the press by the police led to a trial by media of AK. So despite a complete lack of evidence linking them to the crime, people are still convinced they must be guilty because they behaved "oddly".

They must have something on her or they would not be making another trial.
Lets not forget there is a murdered girl here and that all efforts should be made to find out what happened and to prosecute anyone that played a part in her death. Its all very well saying she's innocent, but if she is innocent then why was she there at the time of death.
We can all speculate, but im guessing new evidence has lead to this and her being an American citizen shouldn't deter them from doing a trial.
I always thought she acted weird, but then that's my opinion

Feenie Sat 30-Mar-13 09:52:10

They must have something on her or they would not be making another trial.

Yes, because the Italian justice system is notoriously efficient like that, isn't it? hmm

NicholasTeakozy

Um, that was my point. I was just highlighting the inconsistency between Sollecito's statement and the evidence that the computer was not used after about 21:30.

Upthread I mentioned that Sollecito had claimed to be surfing the web until late and the computer showed it hadn't been used after about 21:30. Then EllieArroway said "They never said they were using the laptop all night - they said they watched a film on it, had sex and went to sleep. This is consistent with the laptop not being used after the film had finished at 9.30."

So I was merely showing that Sollecito had said he was using the laptop all night. Which is one of the many weird things that to me make his behaviour suspicious.

There's no need to be rude - I'm just discussing the case as I find it interesting.

EllieArroway Sat 30-Mar-13 10:47:10

Clara That report is a translation so I think it's likely that there is some confusion. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere else, does anyone suggest that S called the police after they'd already arrived. In fact, K & S made it clear that they were waiting outside for the police after having just called them. Would anyone be so stupid as to nip into the bedroom and call the police after they'd just arrived? Even someone trying to cover their tracks wouldn't do that. And he didn't just make one call - it was three.

50 hours, consecutive or not, is a lot of questioning. K's "confession" is very jumbled, incoherent and inconsistent. This does not suggest a truthful account of what happened, it suggests someone under a great deal of stress trying to say what she thinks people want to hear.

And, if she was confessing - why didn't she? Why implicate herself along with someone who wasn't there? Her confession was a lie, because Lumumba wasn't involved. Is anyone suggesting seriously that she'd implicate herself of MURDER, yet try and protect Guede who she hardly knew?

Her confession was bullcrap from start to finish. I strongly suspect that the police, at this stage, suspected Lumumba who was apparently keen on Meredith and told Knox that he'd given her the night off work so he could go the cottage and see Meredith. Maybe this made sense to Knox and she went along with it. I don't know - but that's rather more likely than that she confessed to her part but lied about who else was involved. Why ever would she?

EllieArroway Sat 30-Mar-13 11:22:22

So I was merely showing that Sollecito had said he was using the laptop all night. Which is one of the many weird things that to me make his behaviour suspicious

Yes - but his whole statement can be shown to be fiction. Knox WAS in his flat that night - she was there when a friend of S's came to the door. So that must bring into focus how much of his statement can be trusted - and if he was lying about things that could have exonerated him (that he and K were alone in his flat together) then why? The most likely explanation is the same as why K made her fictitious confession - pressure & confusion.

Neither of them were being (as far as they knew) questioned as suspects - just witnesses - which is why they had no lawyer present. Helping the police out by giving them information that you know they want to hear is hardly unknown.

And I think the fact that K & S were stoned that night does have some bearing on subsequent confusion over exactly what they did and when they did it.

As portofino says - Guede left his DNA everywhere and fled the country immediately after it happened. There's no evidence that anyone else was involved in Meredith's murder, so the most likely explanation is that he acted alone.

The only "evidence" that people keep bringing up ad nauseum is that Knox, apparently, didn't seem that bothered by what had happened.

Firstly - that's bull. Police reports say that she was hysterical at times, just not when there was a camera around to record it.

She was doing the splits in the police station (not cartwheels) because a police officer asked her to show him some yoga moves.

And surely, if you are guilty of a terrible crime and trying to cover it up, wouldn't you go out of your way to behave as if you're inconsolable and devastated? She clearly wasn't putting on a show of any kind - and that strongly suggests she didn't feel she had to because she was inncocent. Like wise Sollecito.

No - the thing makes sense when you conclude that Guede acted alone. Add in S & K, and suddenly nothing makes sense. And as Judge Judy is fond of saying wink, if something makes no sense it's usually nonsense.

Nancy66 Sat 30-Mar-13 11:25:33

The Kercher family think Knox as involved, the Italian police think she was too. It can't be for no reason.

CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs Sat 30-Mar-13 11:42:52

Even if my phone is off, if I have set an alarm, for, say, 6am, it will switch itself on. That is evidence of nothing. There's been plenty of times my own alarm has switched my phone on at 6.45am, and I've not levered myself out of bed until 7.30am...phone still on from the alarm though!

Feenie Sat 30-Mar-13 12:14:25

And surely, if you are guilty of a terrible crime and trying to cover it up, wouldn't you go out of your way to behave as if you're inconsolable and devastated? She clearly wasn't putting on a show of any kind - and that strongly suggests she didn't feel she had to because she was inncocent. Like wise Sollecito.

Very good point.

Portofino Sat 30-Mar-13 12:22:30

The prosecutor came up with the sex game gone wrong scenario out of thin air. Then stuck to it. They desperately scrabbled about to find evidence to put them there then leaked misinformation to the press. And Lo the evil Foxy Knoxy was born. In reality it would be MOST unlikely that 2 nice middle class college students who were both newly loved up and of previous good character, would exhibit the behaviour that was claimed. And MOST likely that it was an opportunist rape and murder by a known criminal. And the evidence would seem to back that p.

Portofino Sat 30-Mar-13 12:25:13

Look at Colin Stagg. The police "knew" that he was their man. He was suitably odd, fit the profile perfectly, had the means and opportunity etc. Except he was completely innocent.

Viviennemary Sat 30-Mar-13 12:40:21

Their statements don't add up. I couldn't believe when they were acquitted or whatever the Italians call it last time. If the police think they are involved then the process must take its due course.

Feenie Sat 30-Mar-13 12:46:28

I couldn't believe when they were acquitted or whatever the Italians call it last time.

Anyone following the case closely could see that it would have been ludicrous to convict them.

Portofino Sat 30-Mar-13 12:51:45

Unless you were following it closely in the Daily Fail.....

EllieArroway Sat 30-Mar-13 12:55:48

The Kercher family think Knox as involved, the Italian police think she was too. It can't be for no reason

Of course it can. History is littered with people convinced that xyz is guilty of something terrible & it subsequently turns out that they were completely inncocent.

Suspicion does not equal evidence of guilt.

And yes - Colin Stagg is a superb example. I would also add in the JonBenet Ramsey case. How many people were completely convinced of their guilt, including all police officers? They were innocent which has been largely accepted now.

Their statements indeed don't add up - and while this might indicate guilt, it could also indicate extreme pressure and stress. The incoherence of Knox's statements strongly suggest this. If she had the presence of mind to try and concoct a tale to exonerate herself, then she'd have come up with a better one. Her statements were wild and fantastical which does not indicate cold hearted lies, it suggests a state of confusion.

Crutchlow35 Sat 30-Mar-13 13:29:46

I don't think the kercher family have ever said they thinks K and S to be involved. All I think they have said is that they want the truth. I really do not think they have said Amanda is involved.

Ellie

Yes, Sollecito's whole statement is a fiction. There is plenty of evidence that Amanda was with him that evening, ate dinner with him, watched a movie, etc. up until approx 21:30.

My point is that he lied about not being with Knox all evening, lied about being online until 1am - so he's a liar. His whole statement was full of lies. That, to me, is suspicious.

Why would a totally innocent person who knew nothing about the crime make up such a false sequence of events for their statement and drop their girlfriend in it? It's odd. Unless he did know something and wanted to put it all onto Amanda to get himself out of trouble.

Ellie
"Clara That report is a translation so I think it's likely that there is some confusion. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere else, does anyone suggest that S called the police after they'd already arrived."

I think this was gone into in the Micheli report into the verdict and sentencing of Guede. That report concluded that Sollecito was lying about the timing of his calls to the police. So that must be where I originally read it.

Nancy66 Sat 30-Mar-13 15:23:56

Colin Stagg was innocent - not convinced on JonBenet Ramsay.

miscarriages of justice do happen but, equally, so too do people get away with murder.

Portofino Sat 30-Mar-13 18:59:22

The postal van was dispatched at 12.46. Rafaelle called the police about 5 mins later. They were outside waiting for the police when the postal police arrived.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now