Amanda Knox retrial begins

retro:electro

irishash wrote: »

She deserved 4 years in jail for telling police officers exactly what they wanted to hear? I suppose you think Brendan Dassey deserved his time in jail for exactly the same thing then.

You keep talking about how she ruined his life, yet you say nothing of the fact that the police ruined her life and that of Raffael. Selective sympathy here.....

Brendan Dassey has a severely compromised mental capacity, Knox does not.
Brendan incriminated himself, Knox incriminated an innocent man. See where I'm going here?

Yes if they are innocent I have sympathy, but sure she hasn't shut up since she's been freed and has made millions (as has Raffael) from the case so I suppose that's some compensation for a "ruined life".
Patrick hasn't opened his mouth nor has he profited one cent from Meredith's death.

ThinkProgress

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Lol, you crack me up

I applaud your efforts on here. I really do!

But you are are fighting a losing battle. The PR machine has done it's job on so many people... that's why you pay the big bucks for them and the lawyers.

Once the tide of public opinion turned in their favor, it was a wave that was never going to be stopped. An entire country's legal system was powerless against it, what chance a few lone dissenting voices in the crowd?

Expect Guede to be the next with a book deal/docudrama/movie deal... no doubt he will roll the dice for his chance to get rich off the back of a murdered young girl too!

Welcome to the circus that now masquerades as "real life"!

irishash

Cianmcliam wrote: »

irishash wrote: »

She was interrogated for 43 hours that week. You make it sound as if that night time interrogation was the first time she spoke with them. Again, twist the facts to fit your preferred version of the story. You have not lied, just not told all the facts.

I'm pretty sure it was only her second interview at the police station since the murder, and in fact we know she chose to be there herself, she was not called in for questioning, only Sollecito.

I can check it for you though. The '43 hours' surely includes all the time she was questioned after she had already made a confession of being at the murder scene after at most 2.5hrs of interviewing that evening. That would not be unusual after such an admission.

Here, let me help you:



2^nd November for 12 hours

3^rd November for 8 hours

4^th November for 12 hours

5^th/6th November for 8 hours and 45 minutes

irishash

anna080 wrote: »

irishash wrote: »

She deserved 4 years in jail for telling police officers exactly what they wanted to hear? I suppose you think Brendan Dassey deserved his time in jail for exactly the same thing then.

You keep talking about how she ruined his life, yet you say nothing of the fact that the police ruined her life and that of Raffael. Selective sympathy here.....

Brendan Dassey has a severely compromised mental capacity, Knox does not.
Brendan incriminated himself, Knox incriminated an innocent man. See where I'm going here?

Yes if they are innocent I have sympathy, but sure she hasn't shut up since she's been freed and has made millions (as has Raffael) from the case so I suppose that's some compensation for a "ruined life".
Patrick hasn't opened his mouth nor has he profited one cent from Meredith's death.

They deserve all the money they get for the hell they went through.

As for your points about the difference between Dassey and Knox, the only point that matters is that the confessions were coerced and false, then later retracted.

Patrick fails to make money from 2 weeks in jail? What a shocker. He did try to sue Amanda though.

retro:electro

irishash wrote: »

They deserve all the money they get for the hell they went through.

As for your points about the difference between Dassey and Knox, the only point that matters is that the confessions were coerced and false, then later retracted.

Patrick fails to make money from 2 weeks in jail? What a shocker. He did try to sue Amanda though.

He had every opportunity to sell his story, he was hounded by the media but decided not to cash in on the death of a young girl.
He has every right to sue Amanda.

And if you really think that that is the only point that matters then that's really troubling.

Cianmcliam

irishash wrote: »

Here, let me help you:



2^nd November for 12 hours

3^rd November for 8 hours

4^th November for 12 hours

5^th/6th November for 8 hours and 45 minutes

Thanks, what's the source for this information? It must be incorrect because there is no way she could have been questioned for 8hrs 45m on the 5th, the interview could not have begun before 10.30pm and the interpreter was not called until after 11pm.

irishash

Cianmcliam wrote: »

irishash wrote: »

Here, let me help you:



2^nd November for 12 hours

3^rd November for 8 hours

4^th November for 12 hours

5^th/6th November for 8 hours and 45 minutes

Thanks, what's the source for this information?

The source is the appeal document from her appeal in 2010 - all times were not challenged by the prosecution. Here, page 12, in Italian so I am not accused of mis-representing the document. Total amount of time was over 53 hours, but that includes time after the coerced confession.

And she was questioned on the 5th AND 6th for over 8 hours. Please read what I typed before responding - makes things easier.

Cianmcliam

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I applaud your efforts on here. I really do!

But you are are fighting a losing battle. The PR machine has done it's job on so many people... that's why you pay the big bucks for them and the lawyers.

Once the tide of public opinion turned in their favor, it was a wave that was never going to be stopped. An entire country's legal system was powerless against it, what chance a few lone dissenting voices in the crowd?

Expect Guede to be the next with a book deal/docudrama/movie deal... no doubt he will roll the dice for his chance to get rich off the back of a murdered young girl too!

Welcome to the circus that now masquerades as "real life"!

It's not the misinformation pumped out by the PR firm, blogs and journalists who don't even speak the language that is the worst thing. It's that the PR firm has successfully created an atmosphere where it's not worthwhile to look into the case but you're obviously a bad person if you think she was involved. That is a masterpiece of successful PR.

Cianmcliam

irishash wrote: »

The source is the appeal document from her appeal in 2010 - all times were not challenged by the prosecution. Here, page 12, in Italian so I am not accused of mis-representing the document. Total amount of time was over 53 hours, but that includes time after the coerced confession.

And she was questioned on the 5th AND 6th for over 8 hours. Please read what I typed before responding - makes things easier.

The document refers to witnesses, this does not mean she was being interviewed for all of those hours, we know the housemates were all present at the police station for prolonged periods of time but they were not all being interviewed all of that time. The source for one of the days hours is a phone call Amanda made back home. Hardly reliable stuff and of course made to look as drawn out as possible by her defence team who wrote that document.

irishash

Cianmcliam wrote: »

irishash wrote: »

The source is the appeal document from her appeal in 2010 - all times were not challenged by the prosecution. Here, page 12, in Italian so I am not accused of mis-representing the document. Total amount of time was over 53 hours, but that includes time after the coerced confession.

And she was questioned on the 5th AND 6th for over 8 hours. Please read what I typed before responding - makes things easier.

The document refers to witnesses, this does not mean she was being interviewed for all of those hours, we know the housemates were all present at the police station for prolonged periods of time but they were not all being interviewed all of that time. The source for one of the days hours is a phone call Amanda made back home. Hardly reliable stuff and of course made to look as drawn out as possible by her defence team who wrote that document.

This document is more reliable than any of the bile you have been spewing on this thread. You may not believe it and that is fine, you opinion (not fact however). The police did not challenge the times, but you do?

In 5 giorni la Knox stata sentita per un totale di circa 53,45 h. - the times refer to her and her only. Now if you have proof (not your opinion) to contradict this, please present it. Otherwise accept the fact that you are wrong about the interrogation times.

Cianmcliam

irishash wrote: »

This document is more reliable than any of the bile you have been spewing on this thread. You may not believe it and that is fine, you opinion (not fact however). The police did not challenge the times, but you do?

In 5 giorni la Knox stata sentita per un totale di circa 53,45 h. - the times refer to her and her only. Now if you have proof (not your opinion) to contradict this, please present it. Otherwise accept the fact that you are wrong about the interrogation times.

Woah, wtf? Where have I been 'spewing bile'? I think considering the abuse thrown at anyone who agrees with the original trial judge and the Supreme Court judgements I've been trying to be as rational and measured as it is possible to be.

I don't accept I am wrong about the interrogation times, I think the defence have every motive for misrepresenting the fact that the housemates were there a long time but were not being interviewed for that time. It even includes the time all of the housemates were at the scene with the Police going through items to see if anything was missing or out of the ordinary. That is not questioning.

The prosecution do not have to refute it, it forms no part of their case nor has it any relevance on their guilt. The defence can say whatever they want and only certain relevant facts will be disputed.

irishash

Cianmcliam wrote: »

irishash wrote: »

This document is more reliable than any of the bile you have been spewing on this thread. You may not believe it and that is fine, you opinion (not fact however). The police did not challenge the times, but you do?

In 5 giorni la Knox stata sentita per un totale di circa 53,45 h. - the times refer to her and her only. Now if you have proof (not your opinion) to contradict this, please present it. Otherwise accept the fact that you are wrong about the interrogation times.

Woah, wtf? Where have I been 'spewing bile'? I think considering the abuse thrown at anyone who agrees with the original trial judge and the Supreme Court judgements I've been trying to be as rational and measured as it is possible to be.

I don't accept I am wrong about the interrogation times, I think the defence have every motive for misrepresenting the fact that the housemates were there a long time but were not being interviewed for that time. It even includes the time all of the housemates were at the scene with the Police going through items to see if anything was missing or out of the ordinary. That is not questioning.

The prosecution do not have to refute it, it forms no part of their case nor has it any relevance on their guilt. The defence can say whatever they want and only certain relevant facts will be disputed.

I apologise for the spewing bile comment.

The appeal document times only refer to Amanda - as far as I am aware, she was told to wait in a waiting room, then walked to a another room, where she was asked a few questions, then returned to the waiting room. The told she can go, then called a 10 minutes later to go back in. Rinse and repeat over the whole week. This is classic police tactics to wear down a suspect. It dis-orientates them, makes them question what they know. Why do you think they tried to obtain the confession in the early hours of the morning?

You don't accept you are wrong about the times, but yet have no proof to support this. I have presented facts and proof to back up my statements. I don't care if you think the police don't have to challenge the times, the fact that the appeal process accepted them as fact is all that matters. There is no record of any challenge to the interrogation times. The Italian court does not dispute the times so they are therefore regarded as accurate. It was a very important relevant fact in regards to the appeal.

Cianmcliam

I think we're all adults here and know taking defence claims and arguments at face value is not the best way to work out the truth. Particularly in a high stakes case like murder. Throw everything at the wall and hope some of it sticks. There is no penalty for the defence twisting and downright lying about the facts. That's their job.

The appeals process do not even address any of the previous questioning as far as I am aware. The document would therefore be uncorroborated hearsay motivated to make Amanda look good.

The fact is that Amanda was not a suspect and was not under arrest on the 5th. She was questioned like all the others as a witness. She was not even asked to attend questioning on that date. She went on her own free choice and was called in after Sollecito started making confusing statements.

seamus

Cianmcliam wrote: »

I think we're all adults here and know taking defence claims and arguments at face value is not the best way to work out the truth. Particularly in a high stakes case like murder. Throw everything at the wall and hope some of it sticks. There is no penalty for the defence twisting and downright lying about the facts. That's their job.

Are you aware that the same conditions apply to the prosecution?
Taking prosecution claims at face value is also useless for working out the truth. In cases like murder they throw everything they can at the defendant in the hope that some of it sticks. There's no penalty for twisting the facts, for omitting relevant evidence or making accusations which are provably untrue.

The only thing you can know for sure in a court case is that both the prosecution and the defence have an agenda to get and avoid a conviction, respectively.

Neither is more trustworthy than the other, and it's hard to tell who is being more dishonest.

brickmauser

Cianmcliam wrote: »

I think we're all adults here and know taking defence claims and arguments at face value is not the best way to work out the truth. Particularly in a high stakes case like murder. Throw everything at the wall and hope some of it sticks. There is no penalty for the defence twisting and downright lying about the facts. That's their job.

The appeals process do not even address any of the previous questioning as far as I am aware. The document would therefore be uncorroborated hearsay motivated to make Amanda look good.

The fact is that Amanda was not a suspect and was not under arrest on the 5th. She was questioned like all the others as a witness. She was not even asked to attend questioning on that date. She went on her own free choice and was called in after Sollecito started making confusing statements.

In her biography waiting To Be Heard she naively thought she could help the cops solve the murder hence her eagerness to help and answer questions. They had their victim.

CMOTDibbler

anna080 wrote: »

Brendan Dassey has a severely compromised mental capacity, Knox does not.
Brendan incriminated himself, Knox incriminated an innocent man. See where I'm going here?

Yes if they are innocent I have sympathy, but sure she hasn't shut up since she's been freed and has made millions (as has Raffael) from the case so I suppose that's some compensation for a "ruined life".
Patrick hasn't opened his mouth nor has he profited one cent from Meredith's death.

Patrick has opened his mouth quite a lot since the murder. He also sued the Italian state for €512,200 compensation for his two weeks wrongful imprisonment and instead received €8,000. He has spoken to the Sunday Times and the Daily Mail on more than one occasion and is reputed to have received payment from the Daily Mail for those interviews.

Whatever about his silence or lack thereof, he has also changed his story on occasion. He first stated that he'd been beaten by police and stripped naked whilst being insulted for his colour. He dropped those accusations later when attacking Knox for implicating him. He has said that he fired Knox before the murder, but that statement is contradicted by his text to her on the night of the murder as well as his testimony in court. He told the police that he'd never met Kercher and then as a witness in the trial, completely contradicted that as well; saying that he'd first met her when Knox came looking for a job.

retro:electro

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Patrick has opened his mouth quite a lot since the murder. He also sued the Italian state for €512,200 compensation for his two weeks wrongful imprisonment and instead received €8,000. He has spoken to the Sunday Times and the Daily Mail on more than one occasion and is reputed to have received payment from the Daily Mail for those interviews.

Whatever about his silence or lack thereof, he has also changed his story on occasion. He first stated that he'd been beaten by police and stripped naked whilst being insulted for his colour. He dropped those accusations later when attacking Knox for implicating him. He has said that he fired Knox before the murder, but that statement is contradicted by his text to her on the night of the murder as well as his testimony in court. He told the police that he'd never met Kercher and then as a witness in the trial, completely contradicted that as well; saying that he'd first met her when Knox came looking for a job.

Maybe he said all of that "under duress". Apparently it can mess with your mind.

Good. He should sue every single person responsible for putting him in that position.

Cianmcliam

seamus wrote: »

Are you aware that the same conditions apply to the prosecution?
Taking prosecution claims at face value is also useless for working out the truth. In cases like murder they throw everything they can at the defendant in the hope that some of it sticks. There's no penalty for twisting the facts, for omitting relevant evidence or making accusations which are provably untrue.

The only thing you can know for sure in a court case is that both the prosecution and the defence have an agenda to get and avoid a conviction, respectively.

Neither is more trustworthy than the other, and it's hard to tell who is being more dishonest.

Yes, indeed, that's why I have referred to actual judgements and motivation reports, not prosecution documents, defense documents or blogs.

CMOTDibbler

anna080 wrote: »

Maybe he said all of that "under duress". Apparently it can mess with your mind.

Good. He should sue every single person responsible for putting him in that position.

So you were wrong then. Big of you to admit it. It so rarely happens around here.

brickmauser

irishash wrote: »

I apologise for the spewing bile comment.

The appeal document times only refer to Amanda - as far as I am aware, she was told to wait in a waiting room, then walked to a another room, where she was asked a few questions, then returned to the waiting room. The told she can go, then called a 10 minutes later to go back in. Rinse and repeat over the whole week. This is classic police tactics to wear down a suspect. It dis-orientates them, makes them question what they know. Why do you think they tried to obtain the confession in the early hours of the morning?

You don't accept you are wrong about the times, but yet have no proof to support this. I have presented facts and proof to back up my statements. I don't care if you think the police don't have to challenge the times, the fact that the appeal process accepted them as fact is all that matters. There is no record of any challenge to the interrogation times. The Italian court does not dispute the times so they are therefore regarded as accurate. It was a very important relevant fact in regards to the appeal.

The procedure for most police forces is to question a suspect repeatedly and as sure as light follows day the suspect who is lying will be caught out.

However if you keep questioning and questioning and questioning a suspect they will begin to cave even if they know they are telling the truth.

retro:electro

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

So you were wrong then. Big of you to admit it. It so rarely happens around here.

Wow. With that inference you should work for the police force. It would suit you.

Cianmcliam

brickmauser wrote: »

The procedure for most police forces is to question a suspect repeatedly and as sure as light follows day the suspect who is lying will be caught out.

However if you keep questioning and questioning and questioning a suspect they will begin to cave even if they know they are telling the truth.

Yes. This is exactly what drove Amanda to go voluntarily to the police station on the night of the 5th to accompany Sollecito, the very place where they had been pumping her for information, starving and beating her for endless hours for days and days. I really am amazed people buy into this stuff.

tigger123

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Yes. This is exactly what drove Amanda to go voluntarily to the police station on the night of the 5th to accompany Sollecito, the very place where they had been pumping her for information, starving and beating her for endless hours for days and days. I really am amazed people buy into this stuff.

What do you think was Amanda's motive to murder Kercher?

CMOTDibbler

anna080 wrote: »

Wow. With that inference you should work for the police force. It would suit you.

Doesn't take much really...

anna080 wrote: »

He had every opportunity to sell his story, he was hounded by the media but decided not to cash in on the death of a young girl.

Cianmcliam

tigger123 wrote: »

What do you think was Amanda's motive to murder Kercher?

I think that is probably the weakest part of the prosecution case. There is no apparent motive for a killing that was exceptionally brutal and cruel, apart from the possibility the killers were out of their minds on drugs and what started as an argument escalated out of control. Still, there are surely more people like Graham Dwyer out there living normal lives and getting vulnerable people involved in murder.

Nonetheless, the Italian courts consider it proven that there was more than one person involved, a cleanup did happen after the murder (only one bloody footprint on the bathroom mat and none around it on the floor), one of the people involved was female (female size shoe print beside the body that was obviously not Guede's), Guede had no reason to revisit the scene to re-arrange the body and could not have known the other housemates were not going to return, Knox claiming Meredith always locked her room when the other housemates were extremely worried that it was locked, her admission made twice in questioning and once in writing, Cassation considering it proven she was there on the night and her alibi was untrue, the staging of the burglary etc. etc. That, along with lots of other evidence, point to her involvement as a participant or an accessory.

retro:electro

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Doesn't take much really...

Is that post supposed to mean something?

irishash

Cianmcliam;101266875

Cassation considering it proven she was there on the night and her alibi was untrue, the staging of the burglary etc. etc. That, along with lots of other evidence, point to her involvement as a participant or an accessory.

None of what you have stated here was proven. It is all opinion, either yours or the Italian police.

As for your answer on motive - out of her mind on drugs?!? Mary Jane really screws you up then. Unless you are suggesting that she was doing shrooms, heroin, cocaine, LSD and so on. And so if it is your contention that she was off her head on drugs, after this brutal sexual assault and murder, she had the where-with-all to do the greatest forensic clean up of all time.......with gloves.

Your arguments become weaker and weaker the more you string them out.

CMOTDibbler

anna080 wrote: »

Is that post supposed to mean something?

Of course. I don't randomly post stuff for the fun of it. Clearly people don't read my posts before replying to them though...

Cianmcliam

irishash wrote: »

None of what you have stated here was proven. It is all opinion, either yours or the Italian police.

As for your answer on motive - out of her mind on drugs?!? Mary Jane really screws you up then. Unless you are suggesting that she was doing shrooms, heroin, cocaine, LSD and so on. And so if it is your contention that she was off her head on drugs, after this brutal sexual assault and murder, she had the where-with-all to do the greatest forensic clean up of all time.......with gloves.

Your arguments become weaker and weaker the more you string them out.

They aren't my arguments, read the Micheli, Massei and Nencini sentencing reports. The Nencini report is particularly useful because it rebuts practically all of Hellmans logical and legal mistakes which were basically repeated in the final court opinion from 2015.

retro:electro

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Of course. I don't randomly post stuff for the fun of it. Clearly people don't read my posts before replying to them though...

Lol.

tigger123

Cianmcliam wrote: »

I think that is probably the weakest part of the prosecution case. There is no apparent motive for a killing that was exceptionally brutal and cruel, apart from the possibility the killers were out of their minds on drugs and what started as an argument escalated out of control.

If all they were smoking was weed, I find it impossible to imagine a scenario whereby they're smoking weed and a row breaks out that involves one savagely murdering another.

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Still, there are surely more people like Graham Dwyer out there living normal lives and getting vulnerable people involved in murder.

Even though Graham Dwyer on the outside seemed to live a normal life, there was a long, long build up to the murder he committed. No such evidence of a history of violence or this kind of behaviour from Knox. You don't just do this kind of thing overnight.

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Nonetheless, the Italian courts consider it proven that there was more than one person involved, a cleanup did happen after the murder (only one bloody footprint on the bathroom mat and none around it on the floor), one of the people involved was female (female size shoe print beside the body that was obviously not Guede's), Guede had no reason to revisit the scene to re-arrange the body and could not have known the other housemates were not going to return, Knox claiming Meredith always locked her room when the other housemates were extremely worried that it was locked, her admission made twice in questioning and once in writing, Cassation considering it proven she was there on the night and her alibi was untrue, the staging of the burglary etc. etc. That, along with lots of other evidence, point to her involvement as a participant or an accessory.

The Italian court has gone back and forth on this multiple times, ultimately accepting that Knox is innocent. It's a botched investigation, and a contaminated crime scene.

Means Of Escape

irishash wrote: »

She retracted the statement and confession - what more did you want her to do? You do know she was also locked up at the same time.

And you realise that Guede, who actually committed this brutal rape and murder, is out of jail already. But yet you complain that Knox did not do enough to get Patrick released from her own jail cell?

Possible that Guede made a plea bargain for information he had and this will be used in retrial as new evidence that allows said retrial

irishash

Cianmcliam wrote: »

irishash wrote: »

None of what you have stated here was proven. It is all opinion, either yours or the Italian police.

As for your answer on motive - out of her mind on drugs?!? Mary Jane really screws you up then. Unless you are suggesting that she was doing shrooms, heroin, cocaine, LSD and so on. And so if it is your contention that she was off her head on drugs, after this brutal sexual assault and murder, she had the where-with-all to do the greatest forensic clean up of all time.......with gloves.

Your arguments become weaker and weaker the more you string them out.

They aren't my arguments, read the Micheli, Massei and Nencini sentencing reports. The Nencini report is particularly useful because it rebuts practically all of Hellmans logical and legal mistakes which were basically repeated in the final court opinion from 2015.

If they are not your arguments, then please present what you feel was the motive.

I am a great believer in that all motives are part of either money, sex, power or revenge - none of these fit the crime if you are to believe Knox was involved. However if you believe that Geude was the only party involved, then it was sex and money.

irishash

Means Of Escape wrote: »

irishash wrote: »

She retracted the statement and confession - what more did you want her to do? You do know she was also locked up at the same time.

And you realise that Guede, who actually committed this brutal rape and murder, is out of jail already. But yet you complain that Knox did not do enough to get Patrick released from her own jail cell?

Possible that Guede made a plea bargain for information he had and this will be used in retrial as new evidence that allows said retrial

What are you talking about? A re-trial? For who? Knox was cleared by the supreme court of Italy. That is the end of it.

Also, of course Guede made a plea, they offered it to him to implicate Knox.

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

They aren't my arguments, read the Micheli, Massei and Nencini sentencing reports. The Nencini report is particularly useful because it rebuts practically all of Hellmans logical and legal mistakes which were basically repeated in the final court opinion from 2015.

I've read them all. One thing that strikes me about them is the almost Agatha Christie-like exposition of the crime. They allow for only one interpretation of the evidence and ignore all other possible scenarios. The Nencini report admits to the lack of attributable motive for Knox and Sollecito, yet goes on to outline one anyway.

Whenever, instead, as in this case, the consummation of the crime is outside a criminal framework, having its roots in personal reasons or in sudden impulses, finding a motive can become very complicated. The motives that drive a group of people to commit such a serious act as taking the life of another human being may not be the same for all, each of the perpetrators could have been driven by a mixture of reasons, some with roots in previous personal relations, others as a reaction to sudden impulses of a base nature, or even mere [acceptance and] participation in the behavior of a loved person.

The motive put forward in the end was a combination of a possible theft of rent money coupled with annoyance at general behaviour in the flat: not cleaning up and inviting people into the flat unannounced. Furthermore, great weight was put on Guede's testimony at his own trial that he didn't steal the rent money or Kercher's credit cards.

Why such weight was attributed to his statement about the theft when at his own trial he denied any involvement in the murder despite his bloody handprint and other DNA evidence fully implicating him, is hard to fathom.

Means Of Escape

tigger123 wrote: »

What do you think was Amanda's motive to murder Kercher?

Same as Paul Bernardo's and Karla Homolkas when they murdered her sister .

tigger123

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Same as Paul Bernardo's and Karla Homolkas when they murdered her sister .

So this was Amanda's first murder, in what's going to be a series of murders, making her a serial killer and rapist?

irishash

Means Of Escape wrote: »

tigger123 wrote: »

What do you think was Amanda's motive to murder Kercher?

Same as Paul Bernardo's and Karla Homolkas when they murdered her sister .

Paul Bernardo was a serial killer and a psychopath. He was possibly sexual abused as a child and murdered for sex and his own gratification. How is that the same as Amanda Knox?

Means Of Escape

tigger123 wrote: »

So this was Amanda's first murder, in what's going to be a series of murders, making her a serial killer and rapist?

Yes
I think that they were a symbiotic couple with similar motives
Both naieve and as they would say
"Things got out of hand "
Bad eggs

irishash

Means Of Escape wrote: »

tigger123 wrote: »

So this was Amanda's first murder, in what's going to be a series of murders, making her a serial killer and rapist?

Yes
I think that they were a symbiotic couple with similar motives
Both naieve and as they would say
"Things got out of hand "
Bad eggs

So both Knox and Sollecito are psychopaths, and it is only a matter of time before they kill again. Even though most psychos displays classic personality traits that indicate this type of behaviour, that Knox and Sollecito do not, they are psychos and even more shocking to you, bad eggs.

There are lots of things I wish I could call you now, but I would get banned

Means Of Escape

irishash wrote: »

So both Knox and Sollecito are psychopaths, and it is only a matter of time before they kill again. Even though most psychos displays classic personality traits that indicate this type of behaviour, that Knox and Sollecito do not, they are psychos and even more shocking to you, bad eggshells.

There are lots of things I wish I could call you now, but I would get banned

Incorrect. Most psychos do not display anything at all .
Oba Chandler is a classic case in example

irishash

Means Of Escape wrote: »

irishash wrote: »

So both Knox and Sollecito are psychopaths, and it is only a matter of time before they kill again. Even though most psychos displays classic personality traits that indicate this type of behaviour, that Knox and Sollecito do not, they are psychos and even more shocking to you, bad eggshells.

There are lots of things I wish I could call you now, but I would get banned

Incorrect. Most psychos do not display anything at all .
Oba Chandler is a classic case in example

First of all, thanks for some reading material tonight - never heard of this case. Second, not all killers are psychos. I could not find any psychological assessment of Oba Chandler or any mention of him as a psycho (apart from a single tabloid page which lazily use the term). I mentioned psycho because you mentioned Paul Bernardo who was tested and found to be a psycho. I maintain that most psycho (I will even say serial killers) display certain tendancies their whole life, and they just cant make them go away.

Lingua Franca

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Same as Paul Bernardo's and Karla Homolkas when they murdered her sister .

You think Amanda Knox was trying to knock Meredith out by stabbing her multiple times a knife so that they could have sex with her without her knowledge, but she accidentally died of her stab wounds?

CMOTDibbler

irishash wrote: »

First of all, thanks for some reading material tonight - never heard of this case. Second, not all killers are psychos. I could not find any psychological assessment of Oba Chandler or any mention of him as a psycho (apart from a single tabloid page which lazily use the term). I mentioned psycho because you mentioned Paul Bernardo who was tested and found to be a psycho. I maintain that most psycho (I will even say serial killers) display certain tendancies their whole life, and they just cant make them go away.

There have been studies on brain development and psychopathy. In the US and in the UK where it was discovered that there were differences in the brain structure of psychopaths and healthy individuals. These were quite pronounced and detectable.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/31432/title/Psychopathic-Pathology/

It's not just a bahvioural difference.

Means Of Escape

Lingua Franca wrote: »

You think Amanda Knox was trying to knock Meredith out by stabbing her multiple times a knife so that they could have sex with her without her knowledge, but she accidentally died of her stab wounds?

No I believe that the truth has not come out and I believe that they were both complicit in the murder . I don't believe that they did not know Guede as Knox admitted they had met
Furthermore I think that Guede probably couldn't be stopped in his frenzied state .
The reason why it's back in court is because there are unresolved issues in the case and that the Keecher family and many others believe that justice has not been served
The police made their own mistakes as was the case in the OJ trial where Jason his son was never interviewed regarding his possible involvement in that crime .
It's very plausible that what began with all four in the room descended into a frenzy where a murder took place and the culprits deflected and removed themselves from any involvement
Guede was clearly involved but to think the the other two just innocently got caught up in his crime is untrue
They had ample time to concoct their story and were resolute to stick with it probably on the guidance of Knoxs partner at the time

Means Of Escape

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

There have been studies on brain development and psychopathy. In the US and in the UK where it was discovered that there were differences in the brain structure of psychopaths and healthy individuals. These were quite pronounced and detectable.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/31432/title/Psychopathic-Pathology/

It's not just a bahvioural difference.

Yes more often that not caused by a brain injury when younger ie Fred West and Ed Kemper

CMOTDibbler

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Yes more often that not caused by a brain injury when younger ie Fred West and Ed Kemper

Not in the vast majority of cases. I personally know one of the forensic psychitrists who started this study in the early 2000s and there was no evidence of any trauma. There were pronounced differences in the physical brain structure that couldn't be related to any injury.

I can't remember the details now because it's almost twenty years ago, but I remember at the time being very surprised that there were such differences. We're talking about guys like Peter Sutcliffe (The Yorkshire ripper) among others.

Means Of Escape

tigger123 wrote: »

What do you think was Amanda's motive to murder Kercher?

Sexual deviancy

Sand

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Sexual deviancy

And you're basing on this theory on what evidence exactly? Wishful thinking?

CMOTDibbler

Sand wrote: »

And you're basing on this theory on what evidence exactly? Wishful thinking?

This was the theory originally propunded by the plodding police force of Perugia. It nicely wrapped up all their suspects in a handy little fantasy that on the one hand could explain their original arrest of Lamumba and subsequent release and on the other, without affecting the motives that they'd carefully worked into Knox's statement.

It was very hard for them to abandon all this, so it continued through the myriad trials until it was eventually pushed aside by the Court of Cassation.

The phrase "Appalling vista" comes to mind unbidden.

However the mud was thrown and continues to stick in the minds of those willing to embrace such things.