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.

CogitoErgoSometimes Tue 26-Mar-13 09:18:59

If she's got any sense, she'll stay firmly in the US.

I agree. I couldn't see her getting a fair trial.

JudithIscariot Tue 26-Mar-13 09:23:33

I hope she stays put too. What about Rafael though?

JudithIscariot Tue 26-Mar-13 09:24:57

The whole thing was a bloody travesty.

Sorry, I should have said. It is both of them.

NicholasTeakozy Tue 26-Mar-13 11:04:14

Just seen this on the news. It's fucking outrageous, there was no evidence to link her or Raffaele to the crime.

JaquelineHyde Tue 26-Mar-13 11:07:54

She won't go, the US will not extradite her but she will be tried in her absence.

The whole case was a mess, I think a re-trail is needed and if I was her I would be welcoming it otherwise she will be remembered for getting away with it due to a failed system and not becase she was innocent.

JudithIscariot Tue 26-Mar-13 11:49:33

I guess poor Rafaelle will have to show up sad. I want to agree Jacqueline, that it would be a good opportunity to clear their name, but the whole prosecution was such a web of lies and misinformation, I would be be terrified they would fuck it all up again.

giveitago Tue 26-Mar-13 19:25:39

She won't have to attend, and neither will Raffaele, but if found guilty they'll have to apply for an extradition order for AK (and I don't see her returning as) and I don't know about RS as he's in the country.

I think it's a reexamination of the process of the appeal rather than a retrial? Appeals are automatic in Italy I think?

limitedperiodonly Tue 26-Mar-13 19:38:49

How many more goes do they want?

JudithIscariot Tue 26-Mar-13 19:48:02

It is ridiculous. And poor Meredith's family. They have the bloke locked up. The one who left his DNA all over the scene and fled the country. Why on earth keep dragging this out?

nancy75 Tue 26-Mar-13 19:52:50

Merediths family were on the radio saying they welcomed the news, they seem to think justice was not done when Knox and rafaelle were released

limitedperiodonly Tue 26-Mar-13 20:00:28

So should we rehearse it for a third time because Meredith's family don't like Amanda and Raffaele, the papers are hungry to see this happen again and the Italian authorities have fucked up?

nancy75 Tue 26-Mar-13 20:03:30

Limited, I was just answering the post above me about merediths family

limitedperiodonly Tue 26-Mar-13 20:05:57

okay

Snazzynewyear Tue 26-Mar-13 20:07:23

I'm none the wiser about Italy's legal process, but I can't imagine for a minute the US will ever agree to her extradition.

Chipstick10 Tue 26-Mar-13 20:09:56

Poor merediths family. Justice wasn't done unfortunately imo

JudithIscariot Tue 26-Mar-13 20:21:20

Justice WAS done unless you are talking Guede's 16 year sentence. There is NO evidence Against the other 2. It was trial by media that convicted them. There is no motive and nothing to put them there. They were rightfully acquitted.

JudithIscariot Tue 26-Mar-13 20:25:11

I am just waiting for someone to pop up and mention how evil AK looked in the Daily Fail photo spread so she MUST be guilty.

NotTreadingGrapes Tue 26-Mar-13 20:25:31

There are always 3 levels of judiciary in Italian trials.

The third (cassazione) is the one that ruled today that there must be a retrial.

She won't have to go because in accordance with the US system she can't be retried twice for the same crime and this will be a new trial.

Presumably one of the reasons for the retrial is that Guede has been sentenced for having committed the act "with others". Until those others have been determined, his sentence is also dodgy.

JudithIscariot Tue 26-Mar-13 20:31:40

But "the others" are only in the scenario dreamed up by the prosecution - when they had a different black man in custody. It was not demonstrated by the forensic evidence. Imho it is so unfair to Meredith's family to keep to a view not backed up with any real evidence.

lalalonglegs Tue 26-Mar-13 20:56:37

I've never understood the persistence with which the prosecutors have insisted that the crime was committed by more than one person. The scenario that they came up with - that Amanda and Raffaele had picked up Rudy and gone on some drug and sex fuelled murder frenzy seemed ludicrous, completely unbelievable.

Viviennemary Tue 26-Mar-13 21:54:55

I read that it won't be retried for the same crime exactly. Because the first verdict which found her guilty was overturned. And now this higher court have reversed that decision. I think it's very bad she has got $4m for writing a book.

Coffeenowplease Tue 26-Mar-13 22:00:51

Well I can understand her writing the book. Her family spent millions they didnt have to free her. She has to pay them back somehow.
And in the interests of free speech I dont see why she shouldnt tell her side. She is currently not guilty of anything to do with Meridith so i dont see why not.

Coffeenowplease Tue 26-Mar-13 22:05:49

And I dont think we will ever know for certain what happened. But for what its worth I doubt she did kill her. As incompetent as the Italian authorities were during this case if she had been there , had harmed Meridith there would be some evidence. Which there wasnt. None. No actually evidence to tie her to it.

Just suspicions, lies in the media and circumstances. The stuff in the media about how she owned a sex toy and was therefore some kind of deviant was disgusting.

JudithIscariot Tue 26-Mar-13 22:06:05

Why is it bad that she wrote a book?

JudithIscariot Tue 26-Mar-13 22:09:54

Well the forensic evidence leads me to believe that Rudi Guede killed Meredith. DNA puts him firmly in the room with her. There is no big mystery here.

BananaGio Wed 27-Mar-13 06:49:34

Want to echo what nottreadinggrapes said, there are always these stages in the Italian legal system. So the talk of Knox and Sollecito being acquitted as if everything was done and dusted after the last stage was always premature. This is why for example, (to the eternal mystification of my family in the UK), Berlusconi can be found guilty in one of his numerous trials and sentenced to jail but carry on as normal until all the avenues are exhausted. The is a lot wrong with Italy and the Italian system as there is with any other country you care to mention but this isnt a case of witchhunting until the authorities get the verdict they deserve,this is normal Italian procedure moving in it's normal laborious way.

suburbophobe Wed 27-Mar-13 10:26:54

When I look at the photo of her and him, there's no way I can imagine they did that. Cos I can see myself in her and a friend in him, well, I could never do that to anyone, so can't imagine she could.....

She had her throat slit FFS!

Poor Meredith, and I really feel for her family, not only have they lost her but have to go through this whole travesty too.....

Italian justice, eh? It sucks!

Hmmmm I've read up on all the details of the case against Knox and Sollicito and I'd be very very surprised if they were not somehow involved based on the physical evidence, their unexplained behaviour and the discrepancies in their stories. I couldn't say for certain that they committed the crime but I think the evidence is quite compelling that they were there in the flat and that they knew what had happened before it was 'discovered' by the police and the other flatmates.

Portofino Wed 27-Mar-13 14:26:45

What evidence was that?

There is no evidence Clara

It seems like a lot of the evidence against Knox and Sollecito is built on their unexplained behaviour.

Such as claiming to have slept in until at least 10am (on the morning after the murder) but in reality there is evidence that Sollicito's phone was turned on at 6am and an eye-witness shopkeeper who saw Knox when he was opening his store at 07:45.

Also, Sollecito's claim that he was on the computer using the internet all night but in reality there was no "human interaction" on his computer 21:41 - 05:32 (Meredith was probably killed at about 11pm).

Also, when the police arrived at 12:30 to investigate the mobile phones found in the neighbour's garden (Meredith's phones, which had been dumped there some time after her murder), they found Knox and Sollecito hanging around outside the apartment with a mop. Sollecito told them that they suspected a break in and were suspicious about the blood drops around the apartment and that he had called the police. Records show that he had not called the police at this point - why would he lie? In fact it looks like he snuck off and made the call while the police were looking around the house.

Another weird thing: the fact that Knox told the police shortly after they had arrived that Meredith always kept her room locked even when she just went to have a shower. This was imediately contradicted when their flatmate Filomena arrived and said that Meredith never locked her room.

Portofino Wed 27-Mar-13 14:52:42

I recall the shop keeper was discredited and the police wiped the laptop, so nothing could be proven in that regard. I recall reading the timeline re. the phone calls, I will find later.....

It has been a while since I read through the Judge's reports but I found this timeline in a post I wrote on a different forum:

12:30 the police arrived at the house to investigate the two mobile phones belonging to Meredith that had been found, they surprised Knox and Sollicito outside the house. The two told the police that they suspected a breakin and had called the police. They hadn't, Sollicito made the call to the police about 20 mins later. What can explain that?

Also, Knox called her mother in the US at 12:47 (04:47 US time) and told her that she had just got back after spending the night with Sollicito and was suspicious that someone had been in the house and couldn't find Meredith. Her mother advised her to call the police ASAP. She said she would. She didn't tell her mother that the police were already there. Sollicito's calls to his sister and the police followed this call of Knox's.

This was while Knox and Sollicito had gone into Knox's bedroom and closed the door. Marco and Luca (the boyfriend and friend of Filomena, one of the girls' housemates) had just arrived and the police were talking to them. When Filomena arrived at about 13:00 she saw Knox and Sollicito emerge from Knox's room. Obviously they had finished their flurry of phonecalls to Knox's mother and the police. How can this odd behaviour be explained in terms of their innocence? It is truly baffling.

Even stranger is that Knox claimed to have completely forgotten her 12:47 call to her mother when later questioned. There was no way of explaining it so she simply 'forgot' it. Luckily, her mother testified as to the contents of the call.

Portofino Yes, I think the computer was accidentally wiped but police analysts testified that they had found that the computer was not used after 21:41.

Has anyone who thinks there is no evidence at all against Knox and Sollicito actually read the sentencing report from Judge Massei?

It's here if anyone is interested:
perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=259

EldritchCleavage Thu 28-Mar-13 11:11:54

It is very unfair to criticise Meredith's family, in my view. First, they've been through hell and are still suffering. Second, they have been nothing but dignified and restrained. Third, there is a lot of confusion and it seems, a lot of unanswered questions so a retrial to try and arrive at a more authoritative conclusion seems a natural thing for them to want.

LittleTurtle Thu 28-Mar-13 13:47:10

I was always surprised by Knox behaviour after the death of her room mate. Even if she did not get along with her, when someone dies you show a little concern, just out of respect for her family (her lovey dovey kisses with boyfriend, the weird cartwheels cought on camera etc.) Maybe she was just an odd immature girl then.

But I do say she deserved the time she spent in jail, for almost ruining the restaurant manager's life when she just accused any black man for murder. If the guy did not have a tight alibi, he would be in jail for a long time for something he knows nothing about.

I agree with you, LittleTurtle about Patrick Lumumba (the bar manager). Why did she invent that bizarre story about him?

It's a good job someone came forward to corroborate his alibi.

beeny Thu 28-Mar-13 13:56:45

I agree with you as well Little Turtle

FairyJen Thu 28-Mar-13 13:57:37

I know it's not a popular view but I do happen to think they are both guilty. Maybe not of the fatal blow but of certainly knowing more than they admitted or were involved in some capacity

Chipstick10 Thu 28-Mar-13 14:11:56

I agree with fairyjen.

EllieArroway Fri 29-Mar-13 13:47:14

I've read that report, Clara & not only does it not provide any evidence against K & S, it doesn't support your claims either.

S made 3 calls (one to his sister, a police officer, and two to the emergency number) - these were ALL before the police showed up investigating the mobile phones. Once the police were there, K & S stayed with the group and did not lock themselves in the bedroom.

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.

There's no evidence of S switching his mobile on at 6am. A text was delivered to his phone at that time (that had been sent the night before) - but the delay may have been for reception reasons and not because that's when the phone was switched on.

The shopkeepers "evidence" has been discounted. Not only did it take him several months to tell the police this (in spite of being interviewed shortly after the murder) but the other person in the shop at the time does not corroborate his claim.

K was interviewed without a lawyer present for 50 hours. She ended up saying all sorts of things, including implicating Lumumba. If you read through what she actually says, it's all rather incoherent and disjointed, strongly suggesting intense psychological pressure rather than some kind of confession. If she was going to genuinely push the blame on someone else, Lumumba is the worst person she could have picked, given that she must have known he'd be in the bar at that time and could easily be alibied (as he was).

If all three (S, K & Guede) murdered Meredith, why did they not concoct a story together? Alibi each other, or at least get their stories straight? They had all night to do so, but seemingly didn't.

Why was Guede's DNA all over the scene, with absolutely none from S & K? It's almost impossible to walk into a room without leaving a trace of yourself, yet S&K managed to stay in the room long enough to participate in a very brutal murder without leaving the tiniest trace of themselves. Clearly the scene had not been cleaned since Meredith's & Guede's DNA was everywhere.

The only bit of evidence linking S to the scene was a tiny amount of his DNA on the bra clasp - VERY tiny. Guede's DNA was all over the clasp and the bra strap, so why such a minute amount from S if he'd handled it? This "evidence" has been completely discredited when it was shown that the police scientist who collected it used visibly dirty gloves to do so. It's very likely that S's DNA (found elsewhere in the house) was transferred that way.

This has been a trial by media yet again. Not only is there nowhere near enough evidence to have convicted them in the first place - I think it's plain that the two are completely innocent.

Crutchlow35 Fri 29-Mar-13 14:04:47

Well said Ellie.

Portofino Fri 29-Mar-13 14:32:03

As I recall they found a black man's hair at the scene. They put this together with AKs last text message to Lumbaba "See you later" and concocted a nice little scenario imho. The fact that it wasn't remotely true didn't deter them. I would imagine that it was the police that brought Lumbaba's name into it. And once they had decided on the sex game gone wrong, they stuck with it, even after they arrested Guede, who had left DNA all over the place, then fled the country. Also, the log for the postal police shows that they were dispatched at 12.46 - just before Rafaelle phoned the police. They could not have been there before he did so. I also recall, that it was the calls AK (and Filomena?) made to Meredith's phones that alerted the householder to where they had been thrown at the end of her garden.

Ellie
The report says:
"Battistelli [of the Postal police] had had to get out of the car and walk along before finding the house, where he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30 pm"

It also says "As soon as they arrived, the young people – Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito – said that they were waiting for the carabinieri whom they had called since‚ coming back to the cottage in the morning because they had been away for the night‛ and finding ‚the entrance door open and then the window broken'"

And then later in the report where it details Sollicito's phonecalls, it says:
"12:51:40 Raffaele Sollecito called 112 to inform the Carabinieri of the presumed theft in Romanelli’s room (duration 169 seconds; connection to Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 1 cell, which covers Via della Pergola 7)"

So that call was after the Postal Police had arrived. And after they had told the Postal Police that they had called the Carabinieri.

Also, it is not accurate to say that Knox "was interviewed without a lawyer present for 50 hours". That sounds like you are talking about 50 consecutive hours.

She was interviewed several times over the course of several (five?) days. I'm not sure whether they added up to 50 hours - do you know how the supposed 50 hours were arrived at?

In between her stints at the station, Knox went home, went to her Italian classes, met up with friends and ate out with Sollicito, etc. So I would hardly say that she was exhausted from 50 hours of questioning and rambling incoherantly by the time she accused Lumumba.

Her accusation of Lumumba was very strangly written though.

Why do people on here assume that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent? For sure the Italian police cocked up the crime scene, but that doesn't automatically make them innocent little lambs either. I read Times reporter John Follain's book on the case and it backs up what Clarabella says. Not just strange behaviour, but changing statements and inconsistencies. That crime scene should have been closed off from the start. I feel for the Kerchers because the authorities fucked up and they will probably never get the truth. If Meredith had been my sister I wouldn't give up.

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.

They must be innocent because two nice middle class students wouldn't do that sort of thing. hmm

I personally don't read the fail, but I did read Times reporter John Follain's book. He interviewed everyone involved, including defence lawyer (who believed that AK had the face of an angel so how could she have done it - again hmm), anyway after reading the whole book, I'm afraid it didn't look good for AK and RS. The thing the Italians effed up was not closing off the crime scene and carabinieri etc trampling over it, however, the statements, false accusations and very weird behaviour are what made the Italians then believe Guede had accomplices. Also in the book, the Kerchers do believe AK was involved.

I think some of us will never agree on this.

EllieArroway Sun 31-Mar-13 11:30:52

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

I agree - it's very suspicious. But we do need to understand what was going on with K & S when they were coming up with these fantastical statements. The police, at one point, were questioning them concurrently - an officer moving between each room. K was told that S had implicated her, S was told that K had implicated him. They were both told that the other had sneaked out while the other was sleeping to do the deed so there was huge confusion.

It would have been in the very best interests of both to say that they were alone together all night - and they tried to. All the evidence available indeed suggests that they were - it's only when the police started accusing the other of sinister movements that their stories started to change, becoming more and more ludicrous.

S had no reason to lie - he was home alone with K. So why did he? THAT is what's really suspicious. It was a lie that did him no favours at all, and that smacks to me of coercion.

EllieArroway Sun 31-Mar-13 11:33:11

They must be innocent because two nice middle class students wouldn't do that sort of thing

Are you completely unable to have a discussion about something without trying to insult the people who hold a different view to you? How childish.

This has nothing to do with the personalities or backgrounds of the people involved. Nothing. It's to do with the evidence. Are you familiar with the concept of evidence in any way?

I hope you never end up on a jury.

EllieArroway Sun 31-Mar-13 11:35:15

Nancy66 The DA announced a few years ago that the Ramseys were no longer considered suspects because of new DNA evidence.

Nancy66 Sun 31-Mar-13 11:53:41

I think that was an outgoing DA and the incoming one wasn't quite so forthcoming.

EVen so - I can think of two very high-profile Uk cases where convicted killers have been released on appeal and declared the victims of a miscarriage of justice - where the police are convinced otherwise.

EllieArroway Sun 31-Mar-13 12:51:19

Sorry - does police suspicion amount to evidence then? The police can be wrong - or they can be right. Like all human beings. Unless they have evidence then they have no case.

And evidence matters - not the secret suspicions of police officers.

EllieArroway Sun 31-Mar-13 12:56:13

This whole "there's no smoke without fire" thing is absolute nonsense, and I'm surprised you're trying to advance it.

Nancy66 Sun 31-Mar-13 12:59:20

of course evidence matters. Just making the point that not all 'miscarriages of justice' are that.

EllieArroway Sun 31-Mar-13 13:39:28

True - but a miscarriage of justice is more about declaring a previous conviction unsound rather than that the person is 100% innocent. The law accepts that, to some degree, we can't ever really know that for sure (not being omnipotent beings) which is why the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is so important.

In this case, K & S's conviction was very, very unsound. Doesn't mean they absolutely, 100% didn't do it (we can't know for sure) just that there were not sufficient grounds to convict them.

Personally, I think they probably didn't do it, but I have no way of knowing, so can only go by the evidence available to us. And that, does not support a conviction in my opinion.

Ellie how is questioning somebody saying AK and RS must be innocent because they are nice and middle class rude? If they were working class and tattooed it's like saying they must be guilty. Someone who assumes guilt or innocence based on class would be a dangerous juror, not somebody who looks at the facts. Murderers come from all backgrounds and in all guises.

EllieArroway Sun 31-Mar-13 17:49:01

Ellie how is questioning somebody saying AK and RS must be innocent because they are nice and middle class rude?

Who on this thread said or implied that, apart from you?

You seemed to be implying that the rest of us were unable to be objective because we're blinded by their "nice, middle-classness" and that's obviously not true - and rather insulting, actually.

If you were just picking up on someone else's comment to that effect, then apologies. But it didn't read like that.

I was just picking up on what someone upthread. Sorry if I didn't make it clear, I was trying to say that anyone could be guilty, class shouldn't come into it. After reading Follain's book last year when pregnant, I got quite emotionally invested in the case and feel for the Kerchers and they, especially M's sister, feel strongly AK was involved.

*someone said upthread, that should read!

EllieArroway Sun 31-Mar-13 18:15:31

Then accept my apologies. I read it wrong.

You're right - class and "niceness" are completely beside the point.

Maybe I'll read Follian's book. Is it this one?

No offence taken. smile

Yes, that's the book. I had no strong feelings towards AK and RS before reading and I certainly didn't like the media reaction to AK, whether guilty or not, but certainly after reading Follain's account, I changed my mind. I am so angry at the Italian authorities. I strongly feel we will never get the truth because they cocked up.

Portofino Sun 31-Mar-13 19:02:52

No it was me that said it. These crimes are not typically committed by mc college students with no criminal history. Put that with the total lack of evidence against them and the sex games gone wrong scenario becomes ludicrous. Once they had identified Guede they should have thrown the idea out. The forensics and the crime fit perfectly with him acting alone. Throw the other 2 into the mic and of course it stops making sense.

EllieArroway Mon 01-Apr-13 12:37:20

Portofino Oh, I see. I think there was some confusion over what was said and what was meant.

I'll also add in - how likely, really, is it that K & S, having known each other a week, would be seeking to involve others in their sex life? I know that people do this - but in their first week together? That's the honeymoon period when you're presenting the very best side of yourself to the other. Which one said, "I know - let's go and see if Meredith is up for a threesome. Even better, what about that guy neither of us really knows joining in too?"

No. That's really stretches credibility too far.

Portofino Tue 02-Apr-13 21:44:30

I have started rereading the Follain book with the view to see why people who have read it seem so convinced. It is awful lazy journalism. He repeats the misinformation that was thrown out to the media as fact. The wild sex in the underwear shop, the late night screams, the bleach buying. 2 blonde hairs picked off the body, for example....this is just not true and is not anything presented at the trial.

Plus lots and lots of media spin. 2 or 3 of Meredith's friends mentioned a guy called Hicham who,liked Meredith in their reports to the police. When they were bugging AK and RS she also mentioned him. The comment (in the book) was that maybe SHE was tring to set him up, ignoring the fact that 2 or 3 people had already mentioned him. Lots and lots of character assassination stuff from people who didn't seem to like Amanda much, though no evidence at all to show that Maeredith didn't like her.

Comments on how cool and not distraught AK was compared to a description of the Kercher family, also dry eyed and wanting to know the facts. They were dignified though vs AK being evil and cold blooded. No proper analysis of the evidence, though even Follain mentions that they had to pack the knife they found in RSs apartment carefully so as not to cause damage, whereas the Prosecution claims AK was carrying it Bout in her handbag....

Portofino Tue 02-Apr-13 21:50:50

Lots and lots od descriptions about the investigators being so dedicated and moved by the crime, though normally Tis in a days work sort of thing. Though they fucked the crime scene big time, the all got awards. Lots of taking "statements" out of context timing, which matches the stuff leaked to the press and not the timings given in the trial....

Is there anything more accurate that we can read? My friend is borrowing the Follain book and she says Follain is a 'good journalist' and she has read his stuff before (I haven't). I thought he interviewed/spoke to all involved, including Amanda and witnesses. Surely he wouldn't be able to print a pack of lies? Perhaps I am naive. How do we know what was an exact representation of the trial? I would like to see it and then I may feel differently.

Portofino Wed 03-Apr-13 08:55:30

Murder in Italy by Candace Dempsey is a much more objective account imho.

Thanks Portofino. I would like to read that.

Portofino Wed 03-Apr-13 09:30:07

On the Amazon reviews for Death in Perugia, there are some good summaries of what is wrong with the book.

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/9967113/Amanda-Knox-retrial-dont-forget-Meredith-Kercher-this-time.html

truejustice.org/ee/index.php

I came across these from looking at comments on books regarding the case on Amazon. So many people trying to make money from this and the media obsession with AK.....I still don't know what to think. Seemingly nice people have committed horrendous crimes in history, however, if AK is innocent, how horrific too. There are no winners.

Portofino Wed 03-Apr-13 13:32:54

The Telegraph article is strange. "Lets make it about the victim this time" and queue pictures of AK and Myra Hindley...he seems to be losing his own argument.

Coincidentally I was reading something on another site about the person who runs the TJMK site. He sounds a little odd

Well I must admit, I was wondering who ran that TJMK site. I didn't know if it was a friend of Meredith or family member.

Portofino Wed 03-Apr-13 20:39:02

No just some chap who likes potential female murderers apparently. I can find the link to his general creepiness if you like. Or take my word for it and save minutes of your life. ;-) I honestly have no particular bias. I have read books and websites over the years and honestly don't think AK and RS are guilty. If anyone van show me the evidence that they are, well I will reconsider. Them behaving "oddly" does not cut it. The media put an awful spin on this.

Portofino Wed 03-Apr-13 21:05:29

Or female victims. He liked to write stories about what Meredith was doing if still alive apparently. As I said, bit odd. I prefer more dispassionate accounts based on truth. Meredith's family deserve the truth I think.

awaynboilyurheid Wed 03-Apr-13 21:27:57

AK is guilty as sin but unfortunately will not return to Italy as she will be protected by the USA her behaviour following the death of her flatmate was bizarre she lied to implicate others and has shown no remorse, and now wants to make money out of it, horrific.

Feenie Wed 03-Apr-13 21:32:33

Have you actually read any of the thread, awaynboilyurhead?

With regard to the money, as someone else said I imagine she owes her parents a huge amount of money in legal fees and is trying to pay them back.

Portofino Wed 03-Apr-13 21:37:38

Yes have you read anything about the case apart from what was in the papers?

Portofino Wed 03-Apr-13 21:39:32

Do you not think it is her best interest that the Italian judicial process is followed?

Portofino Wed 03-Apr-13 21:45:21

You do realise she was acquitted as there was no evidence against her, don't you? There was some DNA on a knife she innocently used for cooking in her boyfriends flat. There was NO evidence that put her at the crime scene. Not one little jot.

awaynboilyurheid Thu 04-Apr-13 09:21:12

Horrific

What's horrific? Her behaviour? Doesn't prove she murdered someone does it.

NotTreadingGrapes Thu 04-Apr-13 09:33:16

There should, obviously, have been a feck load of Amanda DNA at the crime scene. What with her living there.

Was there no trace of her at all?

Oh dear, you clearly haven't read the evidence at all have you?

NotTreadingGrapes Thu 04-Apr-13 09:41:59

Who me?

No, I haven't. But there are lots of posts on here saying there was no DNA/evidence of AK in the house?

NotTreadingGrapes Thu 04-Apr-13 09:42:41

Just asking, like.

Sorry. confused

Portofino Thu 04-Apr-13 09:46:00

Of course there were traces of her in the house. Guede however left his DNA and shoe and palm prints at the scene/on the body. No such traces of RS and AK were found. AKs DNA was found in the washbasin, as you would expect, her footprints (not in blood) were found in the hall, again as you might expect.

Portofino I agree, someone having an interest in female murderers/murder victims is def creepy! Who are these people?!

EllieArroway Thu 04-Apr-13 13:20:42

Was there no trace of her at all?

Obviously in other parts of the house there were. Just none at all in Meredith's bedroom. The scene obviously hadn't been cleaned since Meredith and Guede's DNA was everywhere.

NotTreadingGrapes Thu 04-Apr-13 14:05:02

Oh right. OK Thank you! smile

BinarySolo Wed 10-Apr-13 13:59:14

I've watched documentaries which lead me to think k&s were in some way involved. What others have said really, the inconsistencies and balls ups in evidence.

I don't think Knox was handled fairly tho. I also think her barrister did her no favours. Why not just say yes she was a young woman that enjoyed sex and was sexual? That doesn't make her guilty of any crime. Her family invented some bollocks about her nickname being foxy because she 'crouched like a fox' when playing soccer. I think the trying to paint her as a complete innocent did more harm than good as these were exactly the same details that the media seized on to make her out to be a deviant. Clearly she wasn't as naive as they tried to portray her as she was sexually active with a boyfriend after a relatively short length of time and smoked cannibis. Obviously these facts don't make her guilty, but I think both sides tried to add a fair amount of spin.

Oh, and it's rather sexist that the media focus is all directed at her.

Having said all that I don't think she or her family came across well when she was released, as there was little mention of sadness for Meredith's family and their celebrations under the circumstances seemed inappropriate.

DuelingFanjo Wed 10-Apr-13 14:05:53

Hopefully this re-trial or whatever it is will prove once and for all that Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with the murder as all the 'evidence' would suggest. Such a shame that the murderer Guede is forgotten in all this, it's almost as if he didn't do it the way he is ignored.

Portofino Wed 10-Apr-13 23:00:38

I would imagine that as Meredith's family believed her guilty and she spent 4 years in prison for no reason, it would be a hard one to call. She did express her sorrow at the trial and the appeal. As she did not actually kill Meredith what else was she meant to do exactly? As Df says, is Guede expressing his remorse?

Portofino Wed 10-Apr-13 23:04:13

Her family never invented anything or painted her as innocent. The prosecution leaked stuff to the media to show her in a bad light. She got the nickname foxy Knoxy as a child due to her football skills. The papers tried to make out she was a sexual temptress who could make grown men kill at her command. That was what the prosecution case was...

BinarySolo Thu 11-Apr-13 08:59:51

Yes but she used the name foxy knoxy online didn't she? As an adult she would have been aware of the connotations of using this as a screen name surely? I just find the football explaination at little unbelievable, but am prepared to find out I'm wrong.

It's that old chestnut tho that women who commit crimes are judged twice as hard as men, especially if the crime goes against gender roles, ie sexual or against children. Look at Mira hindley and Ian Bradey. It's Hindley who was demonised the most.

I think that's why the media has seized on her. Apparently the ire in America is very different -presumably the media presented the case very differently there.

I'm on the fence really. I think the evidence was massively bodged and that merediths family were hugely let down by the Italian legal system.

BinarySolo Thu 11-Apr-13 09:01:04

Not sure what 'ire' is. Think I meant opinion.

Portofino Thu 11-Apr-13 21:15:21

No she didn't. But the point is even if she did, it doesn't make her s murderer. There is nothing contraversial or unusual about 20 year old college students having sex. Only the media made it sinister.

DuelingFanjo Thu 11-Apr-13 21:39:32

My eBay name is something similar to sexy wizard, I created it based upon a joke a friend and I had at the time. Heaven forbid that I ever end up living in or near a crime scene!

Anyone who as done any reading into the case must surely have te sense to see that two of the people accused are innocent and one is most definitely guilty.

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