Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Alt+F4]

It was a quick assessment of the room by Raffaele.

How would Raffaele know if something was missing from Filomena's room? There is no evidence that he was ever in that room before. Keep in mind, he didn't say, "I don't think anything is missing", he said "They didn't take anything".

The only way Raffaele could be that certain that nothing was missing was because he knew no break in had occured.

 

[Supernaut]

OPEN LETTER TO MR. DAVID MARRIOTT:

Gogerty Marriott, Inc.
1501 4th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101

Mr. Marriott,

I understand that you manage the Knox-Mellas public relations account. From your website, I see that Gogerty Marriott "builds communication strategies for clients involved in public affairs issues. These issues range from behind-the-scenes to highly controversial, but invariably are crucial to the client's financial success or mission."

I thought that I would take it upon myself to bring to your attention a growing trend amongst pro-Amanda Knox communicators (from "anonymous" blog posters, to significant member-founders of the the Friends of Amanda group) that I think is seriously detrimental to any "communication strategy" which you may hope could be crucial to the Knox-Mellas' financial success or mission.

That is a tendency to start to criticise the family of Meredith Kercher, or even Meredith herself, the defenceless victim of the brutal murder for which Amanda Knox has been convicted together with two other accomplices.

Sometime ago, a barely known food blogger who is associated with the murky Friends of Amanda group in Seattle described Meredith as probably feeling "hung-over" on the day she was brutally murdered.

A certain "Kelly" who we understand is a founder of the Friends of Amanda group wrote an Internet comment telling the Kercher family to "get over their grief" and support Amanda.

More and more we see that the Kercher family, who have always maintained a dignified silence throughout this terrible ordeal, are being subject to taunts and abuse. Most recently, today on a discussion board that I frequent, a pro-Knox poster insinuated that the Kerchers are in this process because of the financial payments they could get from a civil suit against Amanda and Raffaele.

I see from your corporate website that "at Gogerty Marriott we apply campaign-style strategies and tactics to communicate in ways that help clients achieve their goals .... We consider every project individually and assemble a team to suit the client's specific needs. We then develop and implement a plan; usually integrating a range of tactics such as earned and paid media, community outreach, ally development, and government relations among other ways of reaching important audiences."

I assume that you are not in a position to state publicly which types of media ("earned" and/or "paid") you employ in this particular campaign. However, even if some of the pro-Knox / anti-Kercher comments which we see are from the more loosely associated Knox Entourage, and they aren't directly under your control, my most heartfelt advice to you would be to send out signals for these pro-Knox elements to cease and desist in their negative comments about Meredith and the Kerchers.

There is no way that Gogerty Marriott Incorporated will achieve any objectives (other than ongoing billing for services rendered) if you continue down that road.

Yours sincerely,
Kermit

I think and speak for myself, Kermit, no one else. I am not a “joiner”, unlike you and the rest.

And - the hell with you and your accusations of “thought crimes”.

I might of guessed that, along with your hysterical call-to-arms to your your fellow water-carriers, that you'd angle for affirmation or agreement from Knox’s defenders (such as Bruce Fisher), so you can scurry back to PMF and TJMK with what you hope will be more ammunition for your little crusade - “Look! Look! The vile Knox supporters are impugning the sainted Kerchers!”.

You’ve been more than happy to watch the worst slanders imaginable (which means LYING, in case you need it explained) of Amanda Knox and HER family for two solid years by the Italian authorities and assorted media-whores.

How can you not see that your hypocrisy is right off the fricking scale? It honestly stuns me every time I contemplate it.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

How would Raffaele know if something was missing from Filomena's room? There is no evidence that he was ever in that room before. Keep in mind, he didn't say, "I don't think anything is missing", he said "They didn't take anything".

The only way Raffaele could be that certain that nothing was missing was because he knew no break in had occured.

They saw the broken window and assumed it meant there was a break-in. He did a quick look around. They were more concerned about the window.

It is really easy to look back now and try to dissect individual comments. Raffaele called the police to come and take a look. This is not the action of a guilty person.

 

[Alt+F4]

Why is it so hard to believe that some people disagreed with the jury?

Of course some people are going to disagree with the jury. The questions is, if the evidence of innocence is as clear as you say it is, why didn't the jury see it as well?

What will be so different in the appeal that a second jury won't come to the same (guilty) verdict?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Shuttit quotes Ellen Kreitzberg as follows:

"So I think the possibilities with DNA testing are immense in terms of being able to exonerate certain people, or on the other hand, definitively indicate that they were the perpetrator. But it still will not be available in somewhere between 70 and 75 percent of the cases in the criminal justice system, perhaps even more. So it is not the silver bullet that is going to solve our criminal justice system problems."

Certainly this is true. In a drive-by shooting, police are unlikely to come up with DNA evidence to solve the crime. But in this case, DNA evidence constitutes the essence of the case against Amanda Knox. Amanda's DNA was found on the handle of a knife, supposedly proving that she used it to kill Meredith. Amanda's DNA was found mixed with Meredith's blood in the bathroom and in the corridor, supposedly proving her involvement in the murder. Amanda's DNA was apparently found, albeit in a minuscule quantity, on a swab from the floor of Filomena's room, mixed with Meredith's DNA, and again, this result is said to be important evidence of her guilt. It therefore seems fair to ask, if Amanda left so much incriminating DNA evidence at the crime scene, why wasn't any of it left in the room where the victim was killed and where most of the DNA samples were taken? Why is all of it in places where it might have been left innocently, just as it was left in Raffaele's bathroom, where her DNA was found mixed with his in a stain revealed with Luminol?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Oh, Brucie... You must have forgotten. The postal police arrived . Caught mop handed.

Suzanne, It is interesting that you call me "Brucie"

I don't mind, I just find it interesting.

You can call me anything you like. I am sure you have other ideas.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I must run for now. Talk to you soon.

 

[capealadin]

IF Raff and Amanda knew the police coming, why stand outside with a mop? They were concerned about the break in. Why was the mop in Amanda,s hand? Surely she knew they would be going back into the cottage with the police? Or was it to show the police that the burgler had missed this very valuable item? The time line of the calls has been gone over so many times.. if you need it, someone here will furnish you with the links.

 

[Fiona]

There is nothing new in your link Bruce Fisher. This has been extensively discussed. It will be interesting to see how it is dealt with in the motivations report. I have been told varously that Massei accepted the later time of arrival of the postal police; or that he left it open as irresolvable. I am waiting for the report, like most of us

 

[Kestrel]

May I suggest reading amanda's testimony about the length and content of the interrogation?

Amanda got up at a normal hour on November 5 to attend classes. She arrived at the station a bit after 10 PM. She signed the first statement at 1:45 AM and a second at 5:45 AM. It should be rather clear that she didn't get a full nights sleep.

 

[Fiona]

Her choice Kestrel. 1:45 is not all that late for a young person. But we have been over all this before and it is clear you will not accept her own testimony; nor any logic or facts. No point in rehashing it: anyone can read any of the discussions of his issue on this thread or anywhere else

 

[capealadin]

Oh, sorry you had to run. Another trip for tylenol, maybe? Brucie, because it's what I would call a child with the name of Bruce. And, you have behaved like one in some instances. Like I said, I,m starting to feel sorry for you. Your position is an uncomfortable one. I don,t like name calling, so you remain *Bruce*. I find no fault in believing in the innocence of someone. I do mind when facts are twisted, lies are told,victims are maligned, and manipulation is the name of the game.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Alt+F4 writes:

The questions is, if the evidence of innocence is as clear as you say it is, why didn't the jury see it as well?

In Wenatchee, Washington, prosecutors spun lurid tales of children being passed around as sexual trinkets in mass orgies. Juries convicted more than 20 people and sent them to prison. They didn't stop to wonder why little girls who had supposedly been gang-raped were found to have intact hymens.

In New Jersey, prosecutors told an incredible story of how a young woman with no criminal history conducted daily orgies in which a dozen or more toddlers smeared feces on one another and licked peanut butter off each other's genitals. A jury convicted her. They didn't stop to wonder how all this depraved activity could have taken place in a church basement where parents or other people might (and did) walk through the door at any moment.

People place too much trust in authority. Raise the voltage and give the "learner" another jolt. Dr. Milgram says it's the right thing to do.

 

[Kestrel]

IF Raff and Amanda knew the police coming, why stand outside with a mop? They were concerned about the break in. Why was the mop in Amanda,s hand? Surely she knew they would be going back into the cottage with the police? Or was it to show the police that the burgler had missed this very valuable item? The time line of the calls has been gone over so many times.. if you need it, someone here will furnish you with the links.

The PMF timeline is wrong in a lot of places, including the time when the Postal Police arrived.

The Massei report gives the time as shortly before 1 PM, A few minutes after Raffaele called 112. Filomena and her friends arrived around 1 PM, shortly after the Postal Police.

If you still believe the PMF timeline, please explain what the Postal Police did between the time they were shown the blood and broken window the the time when Filomena showed up. Did the Postal Police nip off for a quick beer between 12:40 and 1 PM?

 

[stilicho]

Excuse me, this was not an "aside". Where do you get that? You can't take every stupid thing Mignini says and call it an "aside" because it's in closing arguments and not part of "expert testimony". Stilicho, even you must admit that is pretty lame. If you don't want to discuss it, fine, but you have a habit of calling anything you don't have an answer for irrelevant.

We're not talking about guilt or innocence here. Even if I were to assume the guilt of all three, which I'll give you the benefit of here regardless of what I actually believe, it would still be an absurd claim to pretend that this conclusion is somehow based on reason, logic, or examples from other cases or psychological studies of killers.

Mignini's explanation for why the duvet was used to cover the body is just lame. It has no basis in fact. None. Zilch.

And again, if I'm not mistaken, didn't the judges kind of buy this idiocy as an act of compassion showing remorse, which was seen as a mitigating factor against a life sentence? If that's true, it's not so irrelevant anymore is it? Not that I buy that it's an act of remorse at all anyways.

Just as a matter of speculation to you, what evidence at all is there that Amanda had to be the one to cover the body? That's ok, if you don't have any evidence to support that, which you don't, you can just do a little "aside" and give us an unqualified and unsubstantiated opinion based on pseudo psychology from one's own gut feeling.

It was not entered into evidence. It sounds like his unsubstantiated opinion. It has no bearing on the case. Is that more appropriate?

So, then, back to the real question: Why did the killer cover Meredith's body with the duvet?

 

[stilicho]

I only suggested that scaling the wall wasn't the only option. (though technically, climbing a ladder up a wall is also scaling). Of course, since that particular wall has a built in ladder in the form of the window grate below, there is no need for a burglar to bring their own.

Are you also disputing my claim that there was a ladder visible in one of the pictures of the house taken during the investigation?

Where is the evidence that anyone entered Filomena's window? Just list it.

 

[RWVBWL]

Thanks for a simple answer with no bizarre imaginations.

Hi Odeed,
Sorry to know that you feel I have a "Bizarre Imagination". I happened to have grown up on the streets, doing drugs, petty theft, fighting, etc. and might look at this case alot differently then some of you who probably grew up from nicer neighborhoods than I did and who have been discussing this case for months or even years. If not for surfing, a lot of the bro's, myself included, would probably have joined their buddies in jail. So the posts I wrote of are just personal observations of what I feel might likely have transpired that night, from a street point of view...
The only thing bizarre, in my opinion, are the actions of Guede that night.
RWVBWL

 

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by Humanity Blues
There's also no valid basis that covering up the body after a murder is a sign of compassion.

The FOA should be glad of it, for Judge Massie agreed with it and thanks to that he granted Amanda very generous mitigation indeed. Were it not for that, she'd be looking at a good deal more than 26 Years.

See, I actually agree with HumanityBlues. I think covering up the body is a sign of wanting it out of view while scouring the murder scene for incriminating evidence and not out of compassion.

But I wanted his opinion of it.

 

[HumanityBlues]

OPEN LETTER TO MR. DAVID MARRIOTT:

Gogerty Marriott, Inc.
1501 4th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101

Mr. Marriott,

I understand that you manage the Knox-Mellas public relations account. From your website, I see that Gogerty Marriott "builds communication strategies for clients involved in public affairs issues. These issues range from behind-the-scenes to highly controversial, but invariably are crucial to the client's financial success or mission."

I thought that I would take it upon myself to bring to your attention a growing trend amongst pro-Amanda Knox communicators (from "anonymous" blog posters, to significant member-founders of the the Friends of Amanda group) that I think is seriously detrimental to any "communication strategy" which you may hope could be crucial to the Knox-Mellas' financial success or mission.

That is a tendency to start to criticise the family of Meredith Kercher, or even Meredith herself, the defenceless victim of the brutal murder for which Amanda Knox has been convicted together with two other accomplices.

Sometime ago, a barely known food blogger who is associated with the murky Friends of Amanda group in Seattle described Meredith as probably feeling "hung-over" on the day she was brutally murdered.

A certain "Kelly" who we understand is a founder of the Friends of Amanda group wrote an Internet comment telling the Kercher family to "get over their grief" and support Amanda.

More and more we see that the Kercher family, who have always maintained a dignified silence throughout this terrible ordeal, are being subject to taunts and abuse. Most recently, today on a discussion board that I frequent, a pro-Knox poster insinuated that the Kerchers are in this process because of the financial payments they could get from a civil suit against Amanda and Raffaele.

I see from your corporate website that "at Gogerty Marriott we apply campaign-style strategies and tactics to communicate in ways that help clients achieve their goals .... We consider every project individually and assemble a team to suit the client's specific needs. We then develop and implement a plan; usually integrating a range of tactics such as earned and paid media, community outreach, ally development, and government relations among other ways of reaching important audiences."

I assume that you are not in a position to state publicly which types of media ("earned" and/or "paid") you employ in this particular campaign. However, even if some of the pro-Knox / anti-Kercher comments which we see are from the more loosely associated Knox Entourage, and they aren't directly under your control, my most heartfelt advice to you would be to send out signals for these pro-Knox elements to cease and desist in their negative comments about Meredith and the Kerchers.

There is no way that Gogerty Marriott Incorporated will achieve any objectives (other than ongoing billing for services rendered) if you continue down that road.

Yours sincerely,
Kermit

Is this a joke? If you ever expected to be taken seriously in an open letter, why would you sign it "Kermit"?

 

[stilicho]

I might of guessed that, along with your hysterical call-to-arms to your your fellow water-carriers, that you'd angle for affirmation or agreement from Knox’s defenders (such as Bruce Fisher), so you can scurry back to PMF and TJMK with what you hope will be more ammunition for your little crusade - “Look! Look! The vile Knox supporters are impugning the sainted Kerchers!”.

You’ve been more than happy to watch the worst slanders imaginable (which means LYING, in case you need it explained) of Amanda Knox and HER family for two solid years by the Italian authorities and assorted media-whores.

How can you not see that your hypocrisy is right off the fricking scale? It honestly stuns me every time I contemplate it.

The vast majority of those arguing AK's innocence here, at least until recently, appear to have no stake at all in either her guilt or innocence. They are arguing on the strength of the evidence.

I can list as honest supporters of AK's innocence Kestrel, Dan O (in spite of one flubbed line and an abiding xenophobia), Humanity Blues, Matthew Best, and a handful of others. Only Dan O has even attempted to establish a coherent and supportable alternate narrative.

The people who've arrived here as spokespersons for the Knox/Mellas family, or those who use them as primary sources, are the ones who ought to be supplying the narrative and backing up their claims. Many of the resident JREF'ers questioning the convictions of AK (and to a lesser extent RS) have been sourcing FOA and Knox/Mellas documentation but, now that the purveyors of this information have arrived, these new members are curiously mum about the audit trail.

Why the secrecy?