Meredith Kercher case

[Fleetwood Mac]

Can't say if any of this is true, but an inexperienced, confused young person, not perfectly acquainted with the Italian language (although Knox speaks Italian quite well), would have said practically anything during such an interrogation, simply in the means of being permitted a brief recess from the whole ordeal, or for something as simple as being allowed to go to the bathroom.

And how do you know she was 'inexperienced and confused'?

Confused about what? That the police put pressure on her? That's what the police do! The world over! But you don't have every man and his dog coughing up an innocent man. Just as well the fella had an alibi.

I for one am glad she served time for that.

But, the Italian law system, although it may work for Italians and it's their country, should really get a grip of itself. The prosecutor termed her a 'she devil' on the back of buying a pair of knickers, having the odd **** here and there and doing a cartwheel or two. I mean, Enid Blyton couldn't make that up. Pathetic really. From the start, the trial descended into an issue of personalities rather than evidence, and the whole point of a court of law is to resolve individual disputes based on the objective facts.

Also, the Italian forensics teams bungled. A total lack of professionalism. For me, she's innocent as she couldn't be proven guilty and that's the law. There are, however, unanswered questions that for some will always mean there is a cloud over her. You have a situation, still, where forensics experts are disagreeing over the strength of the evidence and it seems that this will never be resolved one way or the other as further tests were denied by the court.

All in all, an absolute farce that means the murdered girl's parents will always be wondering what actually happened. For instance, the Italian kid's DNA was found on her bra strap, according to the defence it was due to the piece being slung around the room with a lack of care. But was it? This simply provides a possibility. We'll never know for certain, due to a lack of professionalism and a focus on personalities rather than evidence by the Italians.

[mariab]

How do I know she was inexperienced and confused??! Does she look like a lawyer to you?
The bra item in question was lying around at the murder scene for 3 weeks before being collected, having been walked upon with police boots and touched witn no gloves. Just watch the BBC documentary, particularly at the scene showing the Italian police collecting evidence from the scene, and how they do it.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Maria[great to chat with you]-and Zodiac and FM,
It was the cartwheels that did it for me I must confess.A bit like Nero 'fiddling' when Rome was burning------[and he had caused the fire].
The chap inside now was her drug dealer?-----?? Anyway he was someone who had been to the flat quite a few times to do some kind of business.The link Zodiac gave indicates that he knew what happened and that he was there but
so was another or others.

Norma

[Ally]

See this is the kind of thing that makes me nuts. The cartwheel did it for people. She cartwheeled, therefore she's a murderer. Never mind that one has absolutely nothing to do with another, never mind that behavior after the fact is meaningless in terms of determining anything unless it is specifically related to the crime and the victim, never mind all that.

You cartwheel, you're a killer. The end. No physical evidence, no motive, no rationale, but SHE CARTWHEELED! We might as well go back to witch trial days and dunk them to see if they float.

[tji]

There is something not right about Knox. No reasonable person would implicate someone given whatever pressure.

I certainly would like to think not. It is like all the evidence put forward there is a for or against argument, for, she is a naive, foreigner who was beat into the confession....or she was guilty and was trying to frame someone else.

As far as I can tell she actually had a translator who testified in court, anyone know which version is true?

Does this make her a killer? No. It is not that the evidence was faulty at all. It is up to the accuser to provide the proof and they simply couldn't do that. She should never have been convicted first time round.

Does it make her innocent, no. I am innocent and I wouldn't frame someone - especailly on the first night for the simple fact I would know they had no evidence to convict me as I didn't do it and had nothing to hide . I would be satisfied my innocence would be proven, maybe after a week or so I might get a little antsy but not the first night!

Is there any answer to her change in stories multiple times, she was at the cottage, she wasn't there, she was with Sollecito, she wasn't with him, she can't remember what she was doing. They had sex, (she thinks) They were in bed together until 10:30 am but computer activity shows up at around 5 am. Sollecito said he was on the computer all night but there was no activity shown in the computer log for the night. The problems with the mobile phones being switched off, Sollecito final statement in which he says she wasn't with him on the night. These are just a few unanswered questions as far as I am aware. There are others but I am not sure how reliable they are, the ones above are my main queries.

Maria

What has a lawyer got to do with her looking confused and inexperienced?

Tracy

[Ally]

Why would their stories change? Easy...because when you are interrogated for hours on end, with no sleep, scared, confused, your story will often change! People look at this and go, oh the truth is the truth and no one who is innocent would ever confess or change their story or whatever. Everyone is strong and upright and they would stick to the truth unless they had something to hide. Bull ****.

There is a proven case here, of four NAVY service men, where the cop was convinced officer A commited a rape and murder. So he got the guy into interrogation and over hours broke the guy down and the guy confessed. Case solved right? Wrong. The DNA came back and it wasn't that guy. So the cop goes, okay, he had an accomplice, picked guy B, broke him down, he confessed, case solved. Problem. Guy B DNA didn't match either. This went on TWO MORE TIMES with FOUR navy guys confessing to a crime they did not commit because of experienced and ruthless interrogation. They served over TEN YEARS in prison based on bogus confessions when the real killer was caught, confessed and turned out to be a neighbor who had no association with these four guys. The cop involved was eventually convicted of several unrelated crimes regarding his handling of cases.

If you want to investigate it: http://www.norfolkfour.com/index.php?

People do not always do the smartest or logical thing when being interrogated. The fact that the tapes are not there, in evidence, despite Italian law requiring them means there is something not right.

[Chris]

Ally

Obviously innocent people do sometimes tell lies, so the fact that Knox and Sollecito told lies isn't proof of their guilt (though the sheer number and variety of the lies they told surely put them into contention for some kind of record, if they are really innocent).

But of course that's quite different from saying that if someone tells lies that isn't a valid reason to be suspicious about them. Even if you aren't suspicious yourself, you can surely understand why other people are?

[tji]

Hi Ally

Thanks for the link, but do we know that they used this technique on Amanda? It seems that Detective Ford had a history of this interrogation behaviour. (Not that it makes it right)

Also that would be well and good on the night but why did she change her story after that.

Seperately they may be inconsisitencies, but as a whole I for one find them suspicious.

Tracy

[caz]

Hiya Caz,

I am somewhat torn. When I first heard about the case, I was pretty much convinced of her guilt based on some of the similar things you mentioned: conflicting stories, etc...

Post #3 of this thread, following my post #2.

No evidence whatsoever at that point, and only Knox's behaviour to go on.

Hindsight is great, isn't it?

The case is over, and the Kerchers have said they just want the right person, or persons, to be held to account for Meredith's murder.

I trust they have got their wish in that respect.

And no, I am not personally offended when this or any other thread goes off topic. I was just trying to steer this one back on course, for the sake of a family whose daughter was at school with mine.

No need for anyone to get snotty about that, surely?

Love,

Caz
X

[Carol]

Hi everyone!

Does anyone know what Amanda Knox's defence has said with regard to the known drug-dealer/user who was seen some hours before Meredith's body was discovered, covered in blood and with a large cut to one of his hands. He was seen washing himself off in a water fountain in the local square and then screaming into his mobile phone 'I killed her. I killed her.' Apparently this was ultimately dismissed as having any bearing on the case. There were credible witnesses apparently.

Love
Carol

[Carol]

I am not a stranger to murder and I actually found the body of a three-year old girl who had been raped and murdered. I also knew Holly Wells, one of the Soham victims, and her great-grandparents were neighbours of ours. The end result of this long association with the down-side of life was that I retired with clinical depression. I am still not over it. Forgive me if I have offended anyone.

Hello Stewart!

I just want you to know that I'm sure you didn't offend anyone and please don't worry about it. I also am a many-year sufferer from depression on constant medication for the past 18 years. (I won't bore you with the reasons, but things add up, don't they?). So next time you're feeling like you don't want to feel remember I'm rooting for you!

By the way, I found a second-hand copy of your book with Paul Gainey 'Jack the Ripper - First American Serial Killer' recently in England. I'm really looking to reading it!

Lots of love,
Carol xxxxxx

[Chris]

Coincidentally, this is something I had been meaning to look up for a while in connection with another case.

In the UK, a defendant cannot be convicted on the sole basis that he has told lies, but under certain conditions this can provide corroboration of other evidence. The principles governing its admissibility were set out in a judgment by Lord Lane in 1981 (R. v. Lucas). In the original case, the issue was whether evidence of lies told by the defendant could corroborate evidence given by an accomplice:

Statements made out of court, for example, statements to the police, which are proved or admitted to be false may in certain circumstances amount to corroboration ... It accords with good sense that a lie told by a defendant about a material issue may show that the liar knew if he told the truth he would be sealing his fate ...

To be capable of amounting to corroboration the lie told out of court must first of all be deliberate. Secondly, it must relate to a material issue. Thirdly, the motive for the lie must be realisation of guilt and a fear of the truth. The jury should in appropriate cases be reminded that people sometimes lie, for example, in an attempt to bolster up a just cause, or out of shame or out of a wish to conceal disgraceful behaviour from their family. Fourthly, the statement must be clearly shown to be a lie by evidence other than that of the accomplice who is to be corroborated, that is to say by admission or by evidence from an independent witness.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IYt7RCVIwhMC

[Fleetwood Mac]

How do I know she was inexperienced and confused??! Does she look like a lawyer to you?

Maria, 99.9% of people brought up to the dock are not lawyes. Yet they do not cough up an innocent man. She appears to be a bright girl, but obviously lacks common sense because there was a very good chance that the fella in question would have an alibi.

Where are you from, Maria? I'd imagine you're not American.

[Fleetwood Mac]

See this is the kind of thing that makes me nuts. The cartwheel did it for people. She cartwheeled, therefore she's a murderer. Never mind that one has absolutely nothing to do with another, never mind that behavior after the fact is meaningless in terms of determining anything unless it is specifically related to the crime and the victim, never mind all that.

You cartwheel, you're a killer. The end. No physical evidence, no motive, no rationale, but SHE CARTWHEELED! We might as well go back to witch trial days and dunk them to see if they float.

Almost.

Yes, the whole idea that a cartwheel lends weight to a prosecution is just ludicrous.

But, the prosecution did argue that they had forensic evidence; the defence produced their own forensic witnesses and argued otherwise.

Because of the stupid pursuit of demonising Knox on the part if the Italians it wasn't resolved conclusively.

But, I agree with you for the most part. She would never have been found guilty in a British court of law, and quite right too.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Does it make her innocent, no.

Tracy, you're missing one salient point with regard to the law (well not Italian law).

The burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the accused.

Underpinning the idea of a democracy and citizen's rights is this: innocent until proven guilty.