Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

What do you think about the Kercher/Knox murder trial?

173 replies

Kathyis6incheshigh · 13/02/2009 14:40

Latest here

I find it hard to believe she did it - seems very trumped up. So much of the evidence seems to be to do with Knox not behaving 'appropriately', but how would you behave if something so shocking happened as the murder of your flatmate? I can imagine it taking a while to sink in.

OP posts:
DuelingFanjo · 21/11/2009 23:20

Nancy - can you provide a source for the knickers story. I had not heard that.

I do know there were stories in teh tabloids about how she wore no knickers in Prison when first arrested, apparently because she had none and so had to wash the pairs she had but am not sure.

pickupthismess · 21/11/2009 23:29

I'm still in the "they're probably involved somehow" camp but I am confused as to how they supposedly knew Guede or even met him. That bit has never really hung together for me.

DuelingFanjo · 21/11/2009 23:54

Guede was mates with the people who lived below Amanda and Meredith but I'm not sure that he actually knew either of them well. He certainly didn't know Sollecito. That's all I know.

Nancy66 · 22/11/2009 11:38

duelingfanjo - the cartwheeling story came out in February during court proceedings and was the testimony of a detective that had been interviewing Knox. it was before she was a suspect and he considered that her behaviour was very odd and inappropriate considering her friend's throat had been slit just 24 hours previously.

StripeyKnickersSpottySocks · 22/11/2009 12:08

I heard that she was encouraged by the police to do a cartwheel, they were like "go on, show us."

As for trying to pin it on someone else - she was intimidated, shouted at, threatened, lack of sleep. Its not much of a suprise is it?

Quattrofangs · 22/11/2009 13:10

"Its not much of a suprise is it?"

Beggars belief IMO. But for all that, the pair (who let's remember have admitted to lying repeatedly) needed means motive and opportunity. They had means and opportunity but the motive seems just incredibly far-fetched.

DuelingFanjo · 22/11/2009 14:30

I knew about the cartwheels but not the knickers thing.

perfectstorm · 24/11/2009 01:43

Joanne Lees wore a "cheeky monkey" t shirt because all her clothes were in the camper van her attempted rapist had driven away, and she had to borrow something quickly, as her own outfit was undergoing DNA testing, and outback hick towns in the Northern Territory don't often stock slickly smart casual attire at 8 am. That was what she was lent, and it was a bit too small because that was all the police could grab at short notice, and with other priorities - including guarding her as the surviving witness to a presumed murder. Good enough reason? Or should she have said, "oh, I need something more 'grieving widow' for my press conference, please!" I note she then gets slammed for wearing smart clothes to the trial - so, slammed for overly casual, then for overly smart. Could the media please publish a Glenda Slag's Approved Outfits For Harlots In The Public Eye, to avoid such difficulties in future? Sure Jan Moir would oblige.

The media decided Lees was guilty and stitched her up like a kipper, IMO, mainly because she wouldn't sodding cooperate and sob attractively in easily digestible soundbites. (Luckily for her the police solidly backed her - Lindy Chamberlain was less fortunate.) Then oops! A bloke exactly matching her description was caught, with a mother and kid who he was holding captive, and was charged with their rape. Then they decided to extradite him up to the Northern Territory to face the murder charges, instead. Because his DNA matched that found on Lees' clothes (making that cheeky monkey tee worthwhile, after all). So: same car, same face/hair, same DNA, history of sexual violence, in the area at the time. Lees was a victim of a horrific crime, and yet the media, instead of grovelling over their nasty mistake, are still kicking her. Nice.

Lees' treatment shames the journalistic profession, and the defensive blaming the victim that continues to this day isn't a lot better. And yep, Rachel Nickell's partner wrote a book as well - he had a child to raise who needed near constant attention, and he had to feed and clothe him, too. Why shouldn't Handscombe and Lees write their stories? Because they deprived the press of the chance of profiting from their suffering, instead?

I remember the police being certain about Colin Stagg, and Rachel Nickell's family implicitly believing them. Handscombe apparently wrote to apologise to Stagg recently, explaining that the police led him to believe Stagg'd got away with murder. So police certainty on the Italian case isn't enough for me, by itself. I don't know whether Knox is guilty or not, or what she's like, but whether she is pleasant or vile isn't any guide to her guilt or otherwise. All I know is that I am desperately sorry for Kercher's family. Imagine your beautiful, talented daughter setting off on a big adventure, and not only dying, but without the consolation that it was swift or without much pain. A friend's brother was killed one holiday - drunk, fell off the hotel balcony - and that was bad enough, but Meredith's parents' suffering defies comprehension. A real Calvary. It's awful, too, that the trial has turned into a soap opera. Really disrespectful to Meredith Kercher's memory, and the media again have been really horrendous - leaking a video of the crime scene, with the poor girl's body visible, onto television, is unspeakably low. I hope people were fired over that.

EldritchCleaver · 24/11/2009 17:10

DuelingFanjo,

Some of the stuff you have linked to is rather partisan. There are competing websites that present pro- or anti-defence views. Neither necessarily reflects what has actually come out in the evidence in court. It rarely does, in my experience.

We will have to wait and see what the detailed judgment says about the DNA evidence. Don't forget that in a civil law system like Italy, evidence may not be thrown out, even if weak. It is all retained and simply given more or less or no weight in the judgment and verdict according to its reliability. That is a contrast to the UK/US model with lay juries where evidence is more readily excluded altogether.

I don't know if Know and Sollecito are guilty, but I do think they are properly on trial. Don't forget that there was an extensive committal-style hearing in which a judge reviewed the evidence and decided they should both be put on trial. It was not all up to the prosecutor. A lot of the stuff about him in the media stems from a run-in he had with an American journalist over another case. The merits of that ding-dong are really hard to judge.

Innocent or not I cannot get over the fact that Knox falsely implicated Patrick Lumumba. She did not do so after 24 hours questioning, according to the prosecution. They say she was voluntarily at the police station waiting while Sollecito was questioned, was then briefly questioned as a witness and then ended up being questioned for about 3-4 hours. She did not have a lawyer, so the statement she made could not be used against her, but she voluntarily confirmed it in writing the following day, sending it to the prosecutor. That statement can and is being used against her. She should be convicted for that (criminal libel is one of the charges against her). It was an appalling thing to do to an innocent man. He could easily have been ruined by it, had not a witness gone to a lot of trouble to come forward and exculpate him.

DuelingFanjo · 25/11/2009 10:48

OK - well here is a site which gives a run down of what the Prosecution are claiming as evidence and what the Defence have said in return. I don't thik it's partisan, I think it's actually what has been reported in open court but I might be wrong.

Anyway - both sides there.

"Innocent or not I cannot get over the fact that Knox falsely implicated Patrick Lumumba"

I believe she was intimidated, lied to and hit by the people questioning her.

I do think it is awful that she felt the need to implicate Patrick Lumumba but in the end there was not a trace of his DNA at the crime scene.

EldritchCleaver · 25/11/2009 16:58

OK, DF, but why did she reiterate the statement the following day? Why not retract it?

DuelingFanjo · 25/11/2009 20:37

Because she was lying and actually she killed the victim in a sex game along with a completely different man and her boyfriend and was trying to cover it up...

No - I don't really think that!

Her statements were signed at 1.45 am and 5.45 am, so just 4 hours sleep between the two.

The first statement I believe was made under duress. The second 'statement' was a rambling letter which was leaked to the press and if you read it I think it's clear to see that she is utterly confused by the whole thing and that she doesn't make any kind of confession.

When she testified in June, Knox said the police put enormous pressure on her during a harrowing interrogation during which she was hit, was called a liar and the police suggested Lumumba's name to her. I personally believe that because the police had got his name from her mobile and interpreted a text she had sent as saying she would meet up with him later that night, they believed that he was involved in some way. They already believed that Knox was involved despite not yet having DNA evidence to prove so.

Both Knox and Sollecito maintain that their first statements soon after the body was discovered were truthful and accurate.

She has retracted it.

DuelingFanjo · 25/11/2009 20:53

talking about the interrogation she's finding it really hard to deal with the interpreter I think.

DuelingFanjo · 04/12/2009 10:25

Verdict possibly announced today.

blinks · 06/12/2009 16:29

i feel pretty confident that they're both completely innocent.

pofacedandproud · 06/12/2009 16:38

why didn't she implicate Guede immediately? Why was her story so confused and changed so much? I have no idea if she is guilty but I just don't understand why she lied and changed her story so much if she is innocent.

cloudedyellow · 06/12/2009 17:53

truejustice.org/ee/index.php

pofacedandproud · 06/12/2009 18:02

Do you know the family cloudedyellow? I send them deepest sympathies. They have conducted themselves with such graciousness. Meredith seemed to be a lovely girl with a very bright future.

blinks · 06/12/2009 20:50

everybody loves a good witch-hunt.

an absolute fucking disgrace.

Lapsedrunner · 06/12/2009 20:53
Biscuit
stepaway · 06/12/2009 21:05

I really hope that she WAS involved. Because the idea of an innocent young woman being sent to jail for over two decades is just awful to think about.

cloudedyellow · 06/12/2009 21:25

pofacedandproud, no I don't know them, but like you, feel so very, very sorry. Also, feel sorry for the other two families, especially Amanda Knox's young sisters. What are they to make of it?

I thought the site was interesting, because it filled in so many gaps and gave me more understanding of the Italian justice sytem.

It does seem as though AK and RS are guilty, but still unanswered questions and things we'll never know...

RedGenesis · 04/10/2011 16:47

To quote from a body language blog:

"No one hears a blood curdling scream, and doesn't know the source, but covers their ears. As humans, when we hear a threatening noise, albeit a scream, a loud bang or thud, we don't just decide to cover our ears without knowing what is going on. Our natural, biological response is to investigate the noise. It's a protective measure we all have within us, an instinct for survival, because that noise could ultimately be warning that we, too, are in danger.

We only cover our ears when we know what is going on, but don't want to listen to the wretched noise before us. This statement shows that Amanda had some awareness of what was going on when Kercher screamed. To me, that is bone-chilling. I don't think Knox lied about this bit of information. I suspect she was there and she did hear a scream, and perhaps she did cover her ears, but I believe she knew what was going on. It's too strange of a lie to come up with if she wasn't there or wasn't in some way involved. She just changed the details, and those details give her away."

The guy who admitted to killing her was a drug dealer. It is widely believed (nay, even accepted) that Knox was a drug taker. It is widely believed, from what she has said and her behaviour, that she required to be centre of attention and that she disliked the VICTIM Meridith, who had accused her of promiscuity and poor personal hygiene.

As a result, I firmly believe that, though she categorically did NOT kill the victim, she was by her own admission at the scene when it happened. Further, I believe that she set up the events by getting the drug dealer to come in and rape Meridith in revenge, in return for drugs. Did she know it would turn to murder? No. But she knew full well her "friend" was being raped and BY HER OWN ADMISSION IN COURT did not do anything to help or call the police.

Was Knox guilty of murder? No, but she was entirely complicit in the events, even if they turned out worse than she expected.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread