Meredith Kercher case

[Ally]

This where I have to disagree. Not with your assessment, which is correct, but with your outrage. ....

I agree that it's wrongheaded. But I don't feel outrage. I see it as a somewhat natural reaction of having absolutely no closure despite years of trials. And I feel terrible for them. My attitude may change the farther they take this, but at the moment, I completely understand that state of mind.

I am not particularly outraged. If I got outraged over every incidence of flaming hypocrisy I saw, well....I'd be outraged a lot. I just find it deeply ironic that a man who is standing there feeding the media frenzy is bitching about someone else getting the spotlight.

And to be frank, the fact that they have no closure is hardly Amanda Knox's fault. At this point, if they want a place to aim or a target to bear the brunt of their frustration and angst, they ought to be looking at the Peruvian justice system which turned this entire thing into the farce that it is.

[Garry Wroe]

Well if the Knox family does cash in, they will be just as classy as Kercher's family, since they are apparently planning to sue Amanda for 8 million pounds. And of course it will succeed because it's happening over in England where Amanda is the she-devil killing whore who turns cartwheels...never mind the lack of any actual evidence ... The lure of big bucks can bring even the classy down.

Only if all of this is true, Ally, and I have to say that I have my doubts. I certainly saw a TV interview in which Stephanie Kercher stated that whilst she was unhappy with the appeal verdict, she and her family would accept it. Besides which, had the Kerchers wished to make money, they could have done so with little difficulty given the massive tabloid interest in the case on this side of the pond.

[Garry Wroe]

I watched a Channel Five documentary on the case last night which made no mention of a Kercher legal action against Knox. It confirmed, however, that the Prosecution continues to believe that more than one person was involved in the murder. I had assumed that this must have come about as a consequence of physical evidence, but apparently not. It is a surmise predicated on (a) the fact that Meredith would never have invited anyone into the house whilst she was there alone, and (b) she was a physically robust girl and thus could not have been overpowered (raped and undressed) by a lone perpetrator.

This stuff is right up there with the OJ Simpson glove. You really couldn't make it up.

[Ally]

Whether they decide to sue or not, time will tell. I just still find it deeply ironic that for someone so obsessed with his daughter's murder not being turned into entertainment, every time we turn around there's another article with him talking.

But yeah, I agree the Perugian prosecutor is a few tacos short of a combination plate. (Realized in reading this thread over I mistakenly put Peruvian before--don't know if that was a g-v typo -damn you auto correct--or I'd been reading about Vandersloot prior and a mental slip).

[GUT]

G'Day all

Announced in this morning's press:

KNOX RE-CONVICTED!!

[miss marple]

Watch the interview with her on the Guardian website. She comes over as intelligent, dignified and quietly angry with the way she was interviewed by the police.It is very possible the interregation caused her to say things she did not mean,[ which as we know is not the first time this has happened, she had no lawyer with her] as in the false accusation against Lumumba. She also talks warmly about moving into the flat with Meredith.

I do not know if she is guilty or not. I tend to think not.The guilty verdict has not clarified the situation or explained an accurate account of the night. There is no DNA evidence against her. Only unsupported circumstantial. There is plenty of DNA against Geude who is serving a sentence for the murder.

She and her boyfriend probably would not have been convicted in a British court. The Italians seem bend on proving a point. They have a conviction already, so why are they persuing this couple?

Of course the most telling thing in the whole business is the trial by media, as with the McCanns, Knox has been vilified, turned into a sex mad druggy psychopath. Everything she does has been given an ulterior motive.

Its an impossible position to be in. If you are intelligent and rational as Knox seems to be and wish to explain your situation, you are accused of being a cold devious psychopath.
If you keep your situation in the public eye as with the McCanns you are accused of seeking publicity and she is accursed of being uncaring of Kerchner.
Seeking revenge for Meredith's death will not bring her back, but if Knox is innocent a great wrong has been done.

Miss Marple

[GUT]

G'Day Miss marple

but if Knox is innocent a great wrong has been done.

and if she's guilty justice has been served. I'm not saying she is guilty though I really don't know.

However she'll never be deported so will not serve any more time.

It is also why most of the western world have laws against double jeopardy.

[miss marple]

One of the things that made me think she is innocent, is in the Guardian interview she was describing how in the police interrogation, they kept demanding she talk about events in chronological order and she could not sequence the events of the evening. Now according to studies of liars in murder cases, they have a story ready worked out in chronological order, with a lot of detail. Also liars are plausible and look you in the eye. They stick to their story.

Innocent people are messy, they remember random information out of chronological order, they make mistakes, they may be harassed into saying the wrong thing. They get confused. I read somewhere that police have to rethink how they think liars behave. Making mistakes in recall is not a sign of guilt.
Knox was young without any legal support, subject to an intense and gruelling interrogation, and scared.

Miss Marple

[jason_c]

One of the things that made me think she is innocent, is in the Guardian interview she was describing how in the police interrogation, they kept demanding she talk about events in chronological order and she could not sequence the events of the evening. Now according to studies of liars in murder cases, they have a story ready worked out in chronological order, with a lot of detail. Also liars are plausible and look you in the eye. They stick to their story.

Innocent people are messy, they remember random information out of chronological order, they make mistakes, they may be harassed into saying the wrong thing. They get confused. I read somewhere that police have to rethink how they think liars behave. Making mistakes in recall is not a sign of guilt.
Knox was young without any legal support, subject to an intense and gruelling interrogation, and scared.

Miss Marple

All of which can just as easily apply to a liar caught in a lie. A liar trying to think on their feet as various pieces of evidence is put before him or her.

[GUT]

G'Day Miss Marple

Your jumping to conclusions that are not supported by evidence about how witnesses people recount things when telling the truth or lying.

We had a famous case here where a mother was convicted because people thought she was not emotional enough after her daughter went missing.

Some liars will act as you state others will act in the manner ascribed to those telling the truth.

You are also accepting everything Knox says about the interrogation, and I'm sure that she is totally unbiased in her account of what occurred,

[Ally]

The fact that the Italian authorities apparently "lost" her interrogation tapes or somehow conveniently never made them, speaks volumes to me. Her entire prosecution from start to finish has been a farce.

[miss marple]

Where is the evidence?
What we have is a botched police investigation, a convicted murderer with DNA at the scene blaming Knox and boyfriend for a conspiracy. And as Ally said , lost interrogation tapes.a trial by media and character assassination of Knox.
Woman are expected to believe in a certain way when accused of heinous crimes, show repentance, remorse, weep and wail be emotional. If women don't respond to this nonsense and remain calm, contained and rational they can be convicted on their demeanour, as Gut as pointed out.
It is time we stopped making value judgements and expectations of how women should behave and get into the 21st century.
Its the evidence what counts. Show me the evidence.

Miss Marple

[Fleetwood Mac]

Where is the evidence?
What we have is a botched police investigation, a convicted murderer with DNA at the scene blaming Knox and boyfriend for a conspiracy. And as Ally said , lost interrogation tapes.a trial by media and character assassination of Knox.
Woman are expected to believe in a certain way when accused of heinous crimes, show repentance, remorse, weep and wail be emotional. If women don't respond to this nonsense and remain calm, contained and rational they can be convicted on their demeanour, as Gut as pointed out.
It is time we stopped making value judgements and expectations of how women should behave and get into the 21st century.
Its the evidence what counts. Show me the evidence.

Miss Marple

3 leading British lawyers stated a while back, think it was during the first trial, that this case would not have made it into a court of law in England.

She seems a touch odd. For instance, caught telling lies over when her phone was switched on and doing cartwheels in a police station. But, none of this makes her a murderer.

As far as I can tell, she confessed with no lawyer present - standard practice in Western law, and under duress according to her. Her DNA was not found in the room, or DNA was miniscule and therefore not reliable; or DNA found 6 weeks after the event. No credible witness saw her near the crime scene on the night.

If the crime scene wasn't sealed, no reliable DNA was found in the room, and no credible witness saw her near the crime scene on the night; then I can't see a case to answer.

I certainly wouldn't want a member of my family convicted in such circumstances.

What goes against her is that there doesn't appear to have been a serial killer doing the rounds and burglars don't usually kill their targets, which makes it likely that the murderer was someone who knew her. But, again, not enough to convict her.

I have a hunch that she is guilty, but due to a botched investigation and lack of evidence she can't possibly be found guilty.

[Ally]

Where is the evidence?
What we have is a botched police investigation, a convicted murderer with DNA at the scene blaming Knox and boyfriend for a conspiracy. And as Ally said , lost interrogation tapes.a trial by media and character assassination of Knox.
Woman are expected to believe in a certain way when accused of heinous crimes, show repentance, remorse, weep and wail be emotional. If women don't respond to this nonsense and remain calm, contained and rational they can be convicted on their demeanour, as Gut as pointed out.
It is time we stopped making value judgements and expectations of how women should behave and get into the 21st century.
Its the evidence what counts. Show me the evidence.

Miss Marple

As I have said previously in this thread, I am absolutely amazed at this prosecution. This in my opinion was a very literal modern day witch hunt, where the italian authorities were just so sure that the she-devil-cartwheeling-whore was involved, that their reason and basic common sense went right out the window (assuming they had any to begin with). There was not a single shred of evidence that pointed to her guilt. Nothing. It was all just, "we don't like her, so she must be guilty". I would sincerely love to hear the prosecution explain how they think it happened that Knox and Sollecito apparently held Meredith down and participated in her rape and murder with Guede, without leaving a single shred of their own DNA in the room or on her body.

[caz]

I suspect the latest decision has a lot to do with the fact that Amanda Knox originally pointed the finger at Patrick Lumumba and said she had covered her ears while he attacked and killed Meredith. That is a very specific claim to come up with, and must have been very hard for those concerned to reconcile with her not even being in the house that night, and therefore not having the foggiest idea what sort of person may have committed the crime, what they actually did to the victim, or if only one person was involved.

Telling an extraordinary lie like that, and causing Lumumba's life to go down the toilet, when she had no reason to think he was involved and he could have been convicted instead of the real killer - Guede - because of her, isn't evidence that she was involved. But it was just about the worst possible lie she could have told in the circumstances, effectively putting herself right there in the house, within earshot of the crime, and later having to rely on people believing her when she said she wasn't there at all. And she has already paid a huge price for that. It was always a big ask, human nature being what it is, and something no justice system in the world can get around.

Love,

Caz
X