Meredith Kercher case

[Stewart P Evans]

Refuse...

...
I am not being snotty (though I can absolutely be on occasion)...

I simply refuse to believe this. You are one of the cutest, most likeable, sweet, demure and attractive young ladies whom it has been my pleasure to meet.

[caz]

So was Meredith.

You know - Meredith Kercher?



Love,

Caz
X

[John Hacker]

Well, dissent obviously is allowed - there are comments on that blog from people in both camps.

I'm afraid I'm not at all convinced by your characterisation of the blog. If it's not a detailed discussion of the arguments on both sides, it's certainly a very skilful and well-informed simulation of one.

Having said that, I'm happy to admit that I don't know a great deal about the case, and I don't have the time to research it. I merely posted the link because Ally seemed to be asking what the prosecution's arguments were.

Chris,

I'm sorry, I wasn't being clear.

That blog is the personal site of a frequent poster at Perugia Muder Forums and True Justice. Both site are obsessed with the case and are strictly guilt focused. No dissent is allowed there. All they do is rehash and refine the prosecutions arguments while trying to find even more rediculous arguments for the pro-guilt side.

The arguments presented in the blog you linked are straight out of that site and utterly ignore any evidence to the contrary. Although much better presented than most of what you would see in either site the blog is still rediculously slanted and ignores any evidence that doesn't support their argument, while presented anything (discredited or not) that does.

Those sites are worth reading though. If you can sort through the garbage you can get a good feel for the case. More than anything it's reading through those sites and their resources that convinced me that there is no case at all against Knox or Sollecito.

They're funny too. This was posted after the verdict was announced.

"There are many who see this as the start of the endtimes, I don’t know, you can’t know, one way or the other. If it is, then this night tonight was a watershed, a date you can fix on and say that’s where it started."

John

[Ally]

I simply refuse to believe this. You are one of the cutest, most likeable, sweet, demure and attractive young ladies whom it has been my pleasure to meet.

LOL...I can almost hear the heaving from here.

So was Meredith.

You know - Meredith Kercher?

You know Caz, for someone who spends an awful lot of time on a serial killer board discussing bloody murder, that almost sounded like some kind of rebuke that being interested in the aftermath of the crime and discussing it to death is dishonoring to the victims. Nah, you wouldn't possibly do that.

[mariab]

I think that Caz might have known the victim. It's as simple as that.

[tji]

Hi Ally

No worries you didn't come across snotty.

However I am sure I said I in the previous post that I formed my opinion through what I have read on the case, if this was what you were asking? I didn't think I was coming across as 'I think it is because...'

If you were wanting sources then I don't have specific sources to hand, I have learnt through what I have read on the case when it has been shown. Newspaper reports, internet reports etc. I didn't keep notes as to what as I have an interest in the case I do not have the time to go into it at that level of commitment.

Would I like first hand sources - of course, but I think we are going to be waiting a long time for those!


Tracy

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes...

...
You know Caz, for someone who spends an awful lot of time on a serial killer board discussing bloody murder, that almost sounded like some kind of rebuke that being interested in the aftermath of the crime and discussing it to death is dishonoring to the victims. Nah, you wouldn't possibly do that.

Yes, Ally, that occurred to me also and I wasn't going to respond, but as it has been commented upon I shall.

My post was based solely on Ally's post #281 and was nothing at all to do with the subject of this thread (it was off-topic). It was an ironic observation on what Ally said. I feel nothing but sympathy and great compassion for any family member of a murder victim. I am not informed on this case and I have followed this thread with interest as I was learning a lot that I did not know. I am not qualified to pass an opinion on the case or the legal aspects of it. So, I guess, the rebuke was for an inappropriately light-hearted (and off-topic) post on a very serious thread.

To that I would respond that I spent nearly thirty years dealing, on and off, with murder, suicide, fatal accidents, and routine sudden deaths. I lost count of the bodies I had to move and the autopsies I witnessed. A normal defence mechanism to all this morbidity is to joke and treat the matter lightly as it did not bear thinking about too deeply. Therefore it was common to see fire rescue officers, police officers, doctors, and undertakers joke and be flippant in the presence of death.

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.

[Chris]

The arguments presented in the blog you linked are straight out of that site and utterly ignore any evidence to the contrary. Although much better presented than most of what you would see in either site the blog is still rediculously slanted and ignores any evidence that doesn't support their argument, while presented anything (discredited or not) that does.

I keep wondering whether we're reading the same blog.

Perhaps it would be helpful to look at a specific post - 'Knox/Sollectio: was the knife contaminated?'

http://maundygregory.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/knife/

Maybe you could explain in what way that post "ignores any evidence that doesn't support their argument" and/or which of its arguments had already been discredited (obviously "discredited" would have to mean something stronger than "not accepted by the defence"!).

[Fleetwood Mac]

It was clearly the African guy they arrested from the start.

I assume you mean Rudy Guede?

As for her being found innocent I think it was more a case of the collecting of the evidence was found to be faulty. It was Forensic incompetence/lack of knowledge that set her free not her innocence.

At worst she helped kill Meredith, at best she knew what happened, even if she didn't participate, in my opinion. Why point a finger at Lumumba unless she was trying to hide something.

Now she gets to sign a $1 million dollar tv deal while Meredith's family struggle to come to terms with all this.

Apparently she has also spent the last 4 years writing her memoirs, how true this is I don't know. If she has then in my opinion she was found guilty on part of the crime so she shouldn't be allowed to make any money off it.


Tracy

There's a half way house here between the different arguments.

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

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.

She's a wrong 'un. An absolute dick. Never mind the pressure, would you blame an innocent person for murder?

She is innocent, but wants her head reading.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I keep wondering whether we're reading the same blog.

Perhaps it would be helpful to look at a specific post - 'Knox/Sollectio: was the knife contaminated?'

http://maundygregory.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/knife/

Maybe you could explain in what way that post "ignores any evidence that doesn't support their argument" and/or which of its arguments had already been discredited (obviously "discredited" would have to mean something stronger than "not accepted by the defence"!).

The evidence simply isn't enough.

And because she liked a good **** now and again, she was demonised, which is bordering on laughable. The Italians need to sort out their system of law.

[mariab]

To SPE:
I'm sure you haven't offended anyone in this thread.

She's a wrong 'un. An absolute dick. Never mind the pressure, would you blame an innocent person for murder?
She is innocent, but wants her head reading.

A agree with Ally that a weak, irresponsible person would blame an innocent person and possibly their own friends if accused for murder and even if accused for less than murder. It's a sad fact of life.

[Natalie Severn]

There's a half way house here between the different arguments.

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

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.

She's a wrong 'un. An absolute dick. Never mind the pressure, would you blame an innocent person for murder?

She is innocent, but wants her head reading.

That was my reading too. And why did she do that?-saying she saw him there
when he was serving in a bar,saying she had to put her hands over her ears
to block out the screams! of her friend!!!!!! I have never heard anything so bizarre .But so far anyway it would seem there was not a case for her to be charged with murder.Libel is not murder after all.

[mariab]

Hello Norma,
the BBC documentary insinuates that during a long questioning (without a lawyer present) the Italian police were physically roughing up Knox and leading her on in her answers, as in taking for granted that she was present during the murder and pushing her for a statement agreeing with such a version of the facts. 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.
Obviously, what any mature person in such a situation should have done is repeat ad infinitum “I won't make any statements whatsoever without being assigned a lawyer and having talked to the American Embassy.“

By the by, I'll PM you about my Verdi and the Risorgimento paper, if you're still interested.
:-)

[Zodiac]

Italian judge: Knox may know 'real truth' in case.

Hi Norma, Maria, Caz, et al.

I'm really not sure that this article will be of much comfort to either the Knox or the Kercher families, it certainly does nothing at all to repair the already mortally wounded reputation of the the Italian "Justice" system!!!

http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/world/2011/10/italian-judge-knox-might-know-truth-case

Best wishes,
Zodiac.

[mariab]

Hey Z., hope you're fine. Glad that you're back. I'll have a look at your WE link later tonight, if I'm still conscious.