So the verdict is apparently due in the Meredith Kercher murder trial today

[PortofinoRevisited]

BBC Link

The appeal after the overturned convictions. I hope this can all be brought to a close now.

Yes it was a cut.

Before the cut, she talks about RS saying that she was not there. then there is the cut. Then she describes how she named Patrick when she broke and started to think "oh my God, it must be true what they're saying it must be true that I'm traumatised ...".

I wonder what caused her think "oh my God, it must be true what they're saying"

She had been smoking too much weed the night before and was panicky at the unfolding events I reckon ...

People do get confused under questioning, but in almost all cases if they are very young or have a low IQ. Neither is true of Amanda. I don't see why any questioning would suddenly cause a competent person to possibly develop amnesia, place themselves at the crime scene if they hadn't been there and accuse an innocent person. She subsequently hand wrote these claims out while on her own. There was a lot of evidence. There was some DNA. Not of Amanda in Meredith's room it is true, but DNA can be removed by cleaning and is quite hard to extract. It doesn't just cover all surfaces where someone has been. I think she never would have won the appeal without a major campaign in America that was completely in her favor. People who think there is no evidence should read the summing up of the Supreme Court's rejection of the appeal. The Kercher family think she was involved and want her jailed, and in their position, I think I'd feel the same. Of course only the probable participants can say exactly what happened, but there is a lot of evidence indicating that AK and RS were involved.

Um, but there isn't - that is the whole point.

There is the dodgy "confession" made without legal representation and ruled inadmissible for the criminal trial and some "doubts" about the timing of various phone calls. I have seen explanations on both sides. That is pretty much it. There is NO evidence at all of a clean up.

Since this case has been discussed here I've become very interested. I must say that previously I allowed the media to cloud my views (AK was portrait as a sex maniac without feelings wasn't she) and thought AK and RS were guilty. Having read about the case now I am absolutely sure they are innocent.

You say "DNA can be removed by cleaning..." , are you telling me that these two young people with no experience were able to selectively eliminate traces or their DNA but leave that of Guede? Ofcourse not.

The Kercher family must be suffering the incomprehensible with the death of Meredith, but putting two innocent people in join will not bring her back.

They did not completely remove their DNA. It was found in several places. Anyone who says that they are completely sure that they are innocent in this case is not looking at the evidence, they just have a belief. The law is about justice, not bringing back the dead.

In the bedroom, Liz?

Which DNA are you referring to Lizz?

Lizzar - are you referring to the DNA found in her own flat? You can't convict someone because their DNA is found in the place they live. I bet my DNA is all over my house and all over my bathroom. I bet you would find my DNA mixed with my husband and my son in lots of places - and you would probably find random bits of DNA from people that have visited the flat and some DNA of unknown people

I'm also a bit confused at all the people gonig on about the pro-Amanda PR machine. Amanda was demonised and vilified by the most hostile press and was convicted in the hearts and minds of the Italian people long before the trial even started. Every time there is now an honest pro-innocence media article, people start spouting out the PR nonsense. I can't think of anyone that has had more hostile and innacurate media coverage.

And just imagine this - Amanda was 20 and interrogated overnight in a foreign country and in a language she didn't understand. She might not have a low IQ, but she was not worldly wise and was likely socially immature, trusting and easily impressionable. Just imagine being young and alone and being shouted at in a language you barely understand, being hit and told you will never see your family again. Being told that they have firm evidence that 'proves' you were at the cottage - and if you don't remember, you will go to prison for 30-years. This has to be up there for one of the most terrifying experiences that a young person could go through. I really don't know what I would do in the same situation - but I have enough empathy and imagination to understand it must have been hellish and that she was likely pretty broken by the end of it. It's fairly easy to manipulate and confuse people to say whatever you want - and as the police stated 'Amanda told us what we already knew to be true'

'Amanda was 20 and interrogated overnight in a foreign country and in a language she didn't understand. She might not have a low IQ, but she was not worldly wise and was likely socially immature, trusting and easily impressionable.'

Couldn't she have said that she didn't understand what they were saying?
How does the law work? Could she have refused to answer until she got a translator and a lawyer?

She was refused a lawyer - they found a translator, however, the translator didn't just translate, but told Amanda a story that she had been involoved in an accident that caused her to lose her memory - and kept suggesting that Amanda was so traumatised by witnessing the murder, she had suppressed the memories.

The statements were considered illegal and were not allowed to be used in the criminal trial - however, they had already been leaked to the press and they were allowed to be heard in the civil trial, which happened at the same time. An application has been made to the European Court of Human Rights, regarding being used in the slander conviction.

How soon did they get the translator in after the questioning started?

The translator 'kept suggesting that Amanda was so traumatised by witnessing the murder, she had suppressed the memories.'

Was this the translator translating what the police were suggesting?

'because they MADE her believe that'

They couldn't MAKE me believe that, could they MAKE you believe that?

Ever heard of gaslighting? And pressurising and confusing vulnerable and shocked young witnesses so they don't know what they're saying and are more and more confused about what actually happened? The records are full of proven examples of precisely that happening leading to wrongful convictions.

Yes I have heard of it. I have heard that some people crack under pressure and confess in order to end interrogation etc, but I don't know how frequent it is for someone to believe that they may have been at a murder scene when they were not.

Floraclare but she didn't get hit while she was questioned - she recapped what had happened to her mum /in emails and never mentioned being hit again

don't think she was 'refused a lawyer' she was questioned as a witness not a suspect so didn't need one?

Yes - she was being questioned as a witness.

she was supposedly advised by the police during her 'witness interrogation' not to get a lawyer because it would make her position much worse - the other occupants of the cottage & their friends/boyfriends all appointed lawyers immediately

Chaffinch, in the Death In Perugia book it says the police admitted to "cuffing her lightly" on the head but saw this as no big deal. I don't think that's how she saw it.

She had a translator.

She was being questioned as a witness but in fact her status had changed to suspect which she should have been told and a lawyer suggested for her. It wasn't which is why the statements were in admissible; this was got round by holding the slander case simultaneously in which they were admissible.

Floraclare you're confused about the purpose of the PR company. Their role was not to make Amanda likable. The purpose of the PR company was to place enough pro AK stories in the press and on the web that her side of the story was widely known. So every link on these threads to a pro-AK article eg in the Telegraph, in the Guardian. They prove that the PR company was successful. Every post that quotes some disproved piece of evidence or fudges the facts in a pro-AK manner, that's the work of the PR company.

If there had been no PR company then few people on here would be arguing about whether AK was hit during her interrogation or whether or not she had an interpreter.

I've worked in journalism and PR for over 20 years. Lots of people take information from the media and accept it as fact but our (the media) burden of proof for writing an article is much, much less than the burden of proof in a court.

As I've said many times, I don't know if AK or/and RS are guilty or innocent but I do recognise a spun story in the press when I see it, and you're doing their PR company a grave disservice to consider them unsuccessful in their main aim. In some ways, your support of AK proves they did their job very well.

Update from Sollecito land.

The Crimewatch-style programme last night briefly covered the story. Showing RS's fellow Giovinazzo residents all standing in a square with banners "Raf is innocent, we are behind RS. Justice for Meredith" etc. He was there too, but wouldn't speak directly to camera, but they did show a short interview with him filmed in the week.

The only point of interest I thought- the interviewer asked him when he had last spoken to Amanda Knox. He replied that he "thought" he'd been in touch with her via email 2 days earlier (than the interview) he then said something along the lines of "it's not like I speak to her all the time, it's not like we are always talking to each other". Thus, I think, supporting the ideas which are being floated that his people are very definitely putting the wheels in motion to keep the 2 of them well and truly separate in the eyes of the public. Which I think, as others have said, if I thought I was going down, and she wasn't, so would I!

\link{http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/08/who-is-amanda-knox-interview\Who is Amanda Knox?}

Article in today's Guardian. Simon Hattenstone has been talking to her for 4 years. It's very interesting