Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[capealadin]

Also, why did Amanda suddenly become confused and not remember only the time the murder took place? We know she wasn,t traumatised by Meredith,s death. Meredith,s close friends and other room-mates didn,t lie, or not remember what THEY were doing at the time. And certainly, some of them were interrogated many times. As Amanda hasn,t shown herself in any way to be a sensitive human being in this regard. (the murder) why did no one else resort to lying, or blaming someone else?

 

[LondonJohn]

So you think her lawyers failed her, or were over-ruled by Amanda and family? So if the latter was the case, you think Amanda assumed her court statement and diaries would be enough to have her declared innocent? In the appeal, is it likely she will say nothing this time?

I know this is only opinion, but I cannot imagine anyone being accused of murder in a foreign country, receive advice from their lawyers to remain schtum and then decide, and parents agree, to talk and talk and write and write until the cows come home. The lawyers must have had their reasons to think this was a good strategy at the time.

I agree with you totally that it's unlikely that *even* AK and her family were stupid/arrogant enough to override advice from their local lawyer, who demonstrably would know more about Italian law (and, indeed, criminal law in general) than they did. Which, as you say, only leaves the option that the lawyer either advised or acquiesced in the matter of statements, diaries, letters and prison conversations after November 7th.

If the lawyers did indeed think this was a good strategy at the time, I'd definitely question their judgment in this regard. Obviously, as discussed previously, sub-judice rules don't apply to a great extent in Italian law, leading to a whole load of leaking and character analysis. Perhaps they decided on a "fight fire with fire" strategy to try to redress any real or perceived imbalance in the stories being fed to the media. In any event, I think history shows that they were wrong. I don't think that Italian jurisprudence theory differs so much from Anglo-American theory - in other words I think that the generally-accepted principle that accused parties will protect themselves best by remaining silent at least until a trial (and often throughout the trial as well, incidentally), holds true in Italy as it does in the US or UK.

I think that the addition of an American lawyer to AK's team will likely - and correctly - result in a far more controlled use of AK on the stand (whatever some people might think of this new lawyer's credentials in general). However, I think that to an extent it's a case of "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted" - i.e. the court statements, diaries, letters and prison conversations are already out there, and have already done the damage that could easily have been avoided.

By the way, I'm not making these points as a cheerleader for AK in any way, and nor do they imply that I think she's non-culpable. But my points are made to illustrate that I think her lawyers could and should have protected her better. Whether it would have made any difference to the verdict is both moot and difficult to gauge.

 

[RWVBWL]

I think it's possible the phones were in somebody's jeans pocket and the keys may have been inadvertently pressed from pressure. I know I've done this many times myself. I've taken my phone out of my pocket and its been connected to something. I have also received calls from my daughter in which I can hear people talk in the background but it was her phone calling me, on its own, for exactly the same reasons. It's one possibility anyway.
_________________________________________________________________

Hi Danceme,
Thanks for the response.
You know, I bet that's probably what caused those 3 odd phone calls in that time frame. I rarely carry my flip-up phone in the front pocket of my pants, but when I have done so, I too have noticed that a coin or my drivers license or credit card, also in my front pocket, has a few previous times slipped between the flip-up and made my own phone inadvertaintly call out.
So it is possible to think that the person with the phones might have had that 1 in their front pocket, possibly with the stolen credit cards too. I wonder if Miss Kercher's English phone was a flip-up also?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[capealadin]

I think, Londonjohn, that Amanda's parents, had an overinflated opinion of Amanda. This was their golden child, who was adorable and quircky. Surely the world would see her in the same way? I believe they really thought if people, (including the jury) could see what a winning personality Amanda had, how belivable she could be, they would be won over. They should have been on alert as soon as they found out how irresponsibly Amanda had behaved in Germany. Unfortunately, not everyone thinks our kids are as fabulous as we do. Parents don,t always know better. Perhaps they thought having an expensive PR firm behind them was all they needed. It,s possible they overrode what the Italian attorneys tried to advise them. They knew Amanda better. Parents in America have found out the hard way, it is better to listen to their attorneys. They know far better how the judicial system works.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think it's possible the phones were in somebody's jeans pocket and the keys may have been inadvertently pressed from pressure. I know I've done this many times myself. I've taken my phone out of my pocket and its been connected to something. I have also received calls from my daughter in which I can hear people talk in the background but it was her phone calling me, on its own, for exactly the same reasons. It's one possibility anyway.
_________________________________________________________________

Hi Danceme,
Thanks for the response.
You know, I bet that's probably what caused those 3 odd phone calls in that time frame. I rarely carry my flip-up phone in the front pocket of my pants, but when I have done so, I too have noticed that a coin or my drivers license or credit card, also in my front pocket, has a few previous times slipped between the flip-up and made my own phone inadvertaintly call out.
So it is possible to think that the person with the phones might have had that 1 in their front pocket, possibly with the stolen credit cards too. I wonder if Miss Kercher's English phone was a flip-up also?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

Thank God for the "lock keypad" option on my Nokia! But on the flipside, I still occasionally get those inadvertent calls from friends who had me on "last number dialled" and who dial me by accident from their trouser pockets. Twenty seconds of nothing but background street noise when you answer the phone is still marginally disconcerting though....

The elapsed time between the strange incomplete calls is still bemusing to me. As is the issue I touched on, and which is touched on above as well, which is that these sorts of inadvertent keystroke calls usually either fail to connect (if the wrong combination of keys are inadvertently pressed), or they connect to a recipient (if the accidental key presses include the "call button"). If they connect, then more often than not, the connection remains open until the recipient him/herself realises that it's an unintentional call and terminates it. This pattern of termination by the accidental recipient doesn't appear to have happened here.

 

[Mary_H]

What is your latest photo of, RWVBWL?

 

[tsig]

Mary: WAIT!! Have you seen the and heard the publicity on the Casey Anthony case? And that in Forida, documents are made public?? The Italian Court is practicing Omerta in comparison,

She must not have been in range of a TV during the OJ trial.

 

[capealadin]

And Mary, let,s say Amanda didn,t change her story, PRIOR to the interrogation? She didn,t have to. It was only when, during the interrogation, when Raff changed his story, and the facts didn,t line up, that Amanda,s story changed. Had she been telling the truth before the interrogation, and she was telling the truth, and the facts could be corroborated, Amanda would not be in this situation. That is, if we discount any or all, of the evidence. As Raff and Amanda are using themselves as their alibi,s, it is necessary to refute any evidence pointing to Raff, because if it,s proven that he was there, then so was Amanda. This is why there is such a heated debate as to these two items. Even if those two items are thrown out, I believe the verdict will stand. There was no real DNA in the Scott Peterson case, but still given death.

 

[Mary_H]

I agree with you totally that it's unlikely that *even* AK and her family were stupid/arrogant enough to override advice from their local lawyer, who demonstrably would know more about Italian law (and, indeed, criminal law in general) than they did. Which, as you say, only leaves the option that the lawyer either advised or acquiesced in the matter of statements, diaries, letters and prison conversations after November 7th.

If the lawyers did indeed think this was a good strategy at the time, I'd definitely question their judgment in this regard. Obviously, as discussed previously, sub-judice rules don't apply to a great extent in Italian law, leading to a whole load of leaking and character analysis. Perhaps they decided on a "fight fire with fire" strategy to try to redress any real or perceived imbalance in the stories being fed to the media. In any event, I think history shows that they were wrong. I don't think that Italian jurisprudence theory differs so much from Anglo-American theory - in other words I think that the generally-accepted principle that accused parties will protect themselves best by remaining silent at least until a trial (and often throughout the trial as well, incidentally), holds true in Italy as it does in the US or UK.

I think that the addition of an American lawyer to AK's team will likely - and correctly - result in a far more controlled use of AK on the stand (whatever some people might think of this new lawyer's credentials in general). However, I think that to an extent it's a case of "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted" - i.e. the court statements, diaries, letters and prison conversations are already out there, and have already done the damage that could easily have been avoided.

By the way, I'm not making these points as a cheerleader for AK in any way, and nor do they imply that I think she's non-culpable. But my points are made to illustrate that I think her lawyers could and should have protected her better. Whether it would have made any difference to the verdict is both moot and difficult to gauge.

We need to keep in mind, too, that the most harmful passages -- the passages about Amanda's boyfriends -- would not even have been in the diary if she weren't responding to the HIV tests the police conducted. Is it possible her lawyers were trying to expose the police for, first, having conducted the tests, and next, for having reported false positives to Amanda, thus torturing her psychologically? Could her lawyers actually have thought this might reveal more about the police than about Amanda?

Doubtful, but you never know. I can't imagine any lawyers in any country wanting the list of boyfriends to become public knowledge for any reason.

 

[Mary_H]

She must not have been in range of a TV during the OJ trial.

I see virtually nothing about the Casey Anthony trial. It is mentioned in the blogs more often than it is mentioned in Seattle media, and I don't watch Nancy Grace.

OJ's case, on the other hand, was inescapable.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think, Londonjohn, that Amanda's parents, had an overinflated opinion of Amanda. This was their golden child, who was adorable and quircky. Surely the world would see her in the same way? I believe they really thought if people, (including the jury) could see what a winning personality Amanda had, how belivable she could be, they would be won over. They should have been on alert as soon as they found out how irresponsibly Amanda had behaved in Germany. Unfortunately, not everyone thinks our kids are as fabulous as we do. Parents don,t always know better. Perhaps they thought having an expensive PR firm behind them was all they needed. It,s possible they overrode what the Italian attorneys tried to advise them. They knew Amanda better. Parents in America have found out the hard way, it is better to listen to their attorneys. They know far better how the judicial system works.

Fair point, and it certainly appears that AK's biological parents and step-parent have lionised AK almost to the point of irrationality at times. I think that their apparent strategy of painting AK as the sweetest, most wholesome, most loving and caring girl you could ever hope to meet was both dangerous and counter-productive - particularly when clear evidence to the contrary started to emerge both before and during the trial. If, instead, they'd sought to portray her as a relatively average girl on a literal and metaphorical journey of discovery, who had faults and weaknesses and personality flaws - like most girls of her age - they might have gained more traction by then going on to argue that it's still a big leap from that description to a sex-game murderess.

Of course, it's entirely possible that this attempt to push the "Sweet Amanda" angle at any opportunity might have led AK and her family to override sensible advice to the contrary from her lawyer, as you also suggest. We may never know the truth, given client confidentiality laws. But I still tend to believe that the lawyers were, at best, acquiescent in this strategy - and, at worst, they supported it or even suggested it. My belief tends to be supported by the fact that it demonstrably happened and continued happening, with no seeming interjection or objection from the lawyers. Either way, I think they made a collective mistake of significant proportions.

 

[capealadin]

And, I say that, because everyone else had an alibi that stood up under interrogation. The police could only know that they had lied when they had time to check their stories. Anyone can say what they want, prior to investigation. But, it better prove correct.

 

[capealadin]

Mary, the Casey Anthony case is on every network, including Larry King live. In fact, they can,t even do a change of venue, because of all the publicity everywhere. I agree that Amanda,s boyfriends should have had no bearing on the case whatsoever, and it did smack of showing Amanda in a bad light. Unless it is compulsory as to the possibility of aids. I don,t know.

 

[capealadin]

Well, Londonjohn, I appreciate your response. In the end, the attorney must listen to the client/person paying the bills, no? And, I haven,t heard the Knox/Mellas families complaining about Amanda,s representation. I don,t know how much faith they are putting in the percentages of appeals being reversed or reduced. On Italian TV, Curt once again stated how illegal the police had been, the mistruth about the length of the interrogation, etc. I don,t know if that has any bearing on the outcome of the appeal, but it won,t help. Especially, when I believe it comes down to the judge,s discretion about how much extra prison time gets added if Amanda is found guilty of slander. To me, it just doesn,t seem the smart way to go.

 

[43degreesNorth]

I think that the addition of an American lawyer to AK's team will likely - and correctly - result in a far more controlled use of AK on the stand (whatever some people might think of this new lawyer's credentials in general). .

So, what actually could be the role of this American lawyer? Will he be traveling to Perugia and interview Amanda and meet with the present defense team? I would have thought the Italians will be well pissed actually. I thought he was brought on to facilitate the transfer of Amanda to an American jail.

 

[43degreesNorth]

I totally missed what phones the cast all owned or borrowed. What make and model of phone belonged to Meredith, Amanda and Raffele?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Her family has consistently interfered with the legal process and choosing Ted Simon is merely clutching at the final straw. I agree with you that the Knox/Mellas clan are simply ignorant of Italian law and have allowed their ignorance to extend to tampering with the chances of seeing their daughter outside of prison any time soon.

Basically, Amanda's family is just as stupid as she is. The only difference is that they haven't murdered anyone yet.

When the guilters attack the family it really highlights how low they will go.

The comments about Amanda's family on this thread are rather disturbing.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Also, why did Amanda suddenly become confused and not remember only the time the murder took place? We know she wasn,t traumatised by Meredith,s death. Meredith,s close friends and other room-mates didn,t lie, or not remember what THEY were doing at the time. And certainly, some of them were interrogated many times. As Amanda hasn,t shown herself in any way to be a sensitive human being in this regard. (the murder) why did no one else resort to lying, or blaming someone else?

How do you know that Amanda wasn't traumatized by Meredith's death? Did you talk to her, or did you form your opinion from the news?

None of the other people that you mentioned were questioned in the manner that Amanda was questioned. Besides Raffaele, who else was interrogated many times?

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi all,
I just had an interesting read over on TJ4MK. If you have the time, have a look:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Now, I am what you might call an "innocentisti", so I try to look for clues into the identity of the person that might have stabbed Miss Kercher to her death, since I believe that it was not Raffaele Sollecito or Amanda Knox.
I read with interest an conversation that Rudy Guede had with Giacomo on Nov. 19, 2007 where-in he stated that when he left, Miss Kercher had her clothes on. There seems to be a problem with this though, for I believe that she was found differently. So who undressed her?
Hopefully the up-coming appeal trial will shed some more light on who might have undressed Miss Kercher, as Mr. Guede states, after her death and possibly left a stain, maybe semen, on a pillowcase, as shown here in this link:

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/10/defensive-strategy-for-knox-and.html

Since Mr. Guede has always maintained that he did not stab Miss Kercher, and he also says she was clothed when he left, the testing of this stain should show it not to belong to Mr. Guede. Potentially very good news for him, in my opinion.
And maybe a clue to the identity of the person that he has said did stab Miss Kercher to her death.
Hence potentially good news for Mr. Sollecito and Miss Knox also.
I hope the defense lawyers are there for that DNA testing. I bet though, the lab will be able to test it again and again, for it looks to be a good size sample...
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[Mary_H]

Originally Posted by capealadin
I think, Londonjohn, that Amanda's parents, had an overinflated opinion of Amanda. This was their golden child, who was adorable and quircky. Surely the world would see her in the same way? I believe they really thought if people, (including the jury) could see what a winning personality Amanda had, how belivable she could be, they would be won over. They should have been on alert as soon as they found out how irresponsibly Amanda had behaved in Germany. Unfortunately, not everyone thinks our kids are as fabulous as we do. Parents don,t always know better. Perhaps they thought having an expensive PR firm behind them was all they needed. It,s possible they overrode what the Italian attorneys tried to advise them. They knew Amanda better. Parents in America have found out the hard way, it is better to listen to their attorneys. They know far better how the judicial system works.

Fair point, and it certainly appears that AK's biological parents and step-parent have lionised AK almost to the point of irrationality at times. I think that their apparent strategy of painting AK as the sweetest, most wholesome, most loving and caring girl you could ever hope to meet was both dangerous and counter-productive - particularly when clear evidence to the contrary started to emerge both before and during the trial. If, instead, they'd sought to portray her as a relatively average girl on a literal and metaphorical journey of discovery, who had faults and weaknesses and personality flaws - like most girls of her age - they might have gained more traction by then going on to argue that it's still a big leap from that description to a sex-game murderess.

Of course, it's entirely possible that this attempt to push the "Sweet Amanda" angle at any opportunity might have led AK and her family to override sensible advice to the contrary from her lawyer, as you also suggest. We may never know the truth, given client confidentiality laws. But I still tend to believe that the lawyers were, at best, acquiescent in this strategy - and, at worst, they supported it or even suggested it. My belief tends to be supported by the fact that it demonstrably happened and continued happening, with no seeming interjection or objection from the lawyers. Either way, I think they made a collective mistake of significant proportions.

What makes you think this is an angle they're pushing? Amanda's parents aren't the only ones who are impressed with her. Journalists came to Seattle to dig up her friends after the crime and could find only one person they were able to trick into speculating she might have had any involvement. Her teachers and employers also appear to have very high opinions of her. From what I've seen, it doesn't looked like anyone was strong-armed into saying good things about Amanda.

I also don't see any evidence that the family tried to out-strategize or usurp the powers of the attorneys in any way -- why would they, with reputable lawyers in a foreign country?