Meredith Kercher case

[Fleetwood Mac]

a: You may not be able to imagine doing it, but you never know until you find yourself in that situation.

Well, when I drowned that woman for bumping into me on the beach (I was in one of those moods that day, you know, the gold fish had died and I was struggling to come to terms with it), and I was hauled off for questioning by the polis, I didn't resort to pointing the finger at my manager (although I could have been forgiven for doing so as she wasn't far off being a witch).

Which she did, and clearly it was a lie, and she shouldn't have done that.

Agreed.

[Errata]

Aren't blogs by definition biased? I mean, they are personal views and opinions. For something unbiased you would need to find reports and transcripts, or rely on a news agency to provide the details of those things to you in a balanced and fair manner.

Blogs are things like "Why our government sucks" or "This is how I think people should wear cardigans". They aren't useless as a source, but they are never unbiased. So if you are interested in what the average keyboard activist thinks about this case, blogs are useful.

But if you want facts to make up your own mind, I'd try to find a trial transcript. I know they're out there as any number of judges, Justice department workers and State Department workers have been poring over them as they came in. They've been posted on line in parts, I'm sure a full copy is out there.

[Ally]

Unfortunately I don't. Blogs I've read either tend to be heavily pro-prosecution or heavily pro-defense with very little unbiased, objective reasoning. I mean obviously if you lean towards her innocence, you might find the pro-defense blogs more "objective" with better rationales, etc. but to be honest, they are both equally biased (in my opinion). John might know of some, but most I have read have been very strongly one way or the other, with each shading the events according to their held opinion.

[Carol]

Tracy,

Considering that whenever you are asked why you specifically think she is guilty you can only respond "Because of stuff I read" and now you have rah-rahed that blog-twice-I can finally understand why precisely you think she's guilty--you think biased blogs are good sources of information and good places to get an overview of the case.

That explains a lot.

Hi Ally!
Have you got the address of a really good, unbiased blog that I can read.
Thanks.
Love
Carol

[Ally]

Tracy,

Considering that whenever you are asked why you specifically think she is guilty you can only respond "Because of stuff I read" and now you have rah-rahed that blog-twice-I can finally understand why precisely you think she's guilty--you think biased blogs are good sources of information and good places to get an overview of the case.

That explains a lot.

[tji]

Hi all

Nothing more really to add besides while I can understand what you are saying Magpie and agree it was a bad experience for you, I am assuming that was the work of one Police officer making a mistake. (not excusing his actions by the way)

I do have to give my opinion on the blog that Chris pointed out. I personally thought it was quite well written, especially for people with a new interest in the case. It gave a basic run down of things going on with the case. Also people can give their own opinions in the comments section which he seemed to try to answer personally, whether he agreed with them or not.


Tracy xx

[Ally]

99.9% of people interviewed by the police do not accuse an innocent man. Only the wrong 'uns do that.

99.9 % of people make up false statistics to support their arguments.

And she didn't come up with Lumumba and just randomly accuse some random innocent man. The POLICE brought him up because he texted her and she wrote "see you later" and they worked him into the scenario which she eventually agreed to. She didn't just pull him out of thin air and go: he did it.

They brought him into the scenario.

[Errata]

She's a wrong 'un. I can't possibly imagine pointing the finger at an innocent man, and, actually, it's highly unusual in a police interview. So, no amount of: "she was confused/impressionable" will wash. 99.9% of people interviewed by the police do not accuse an innocent man. Only the wrong 'uns do that.

a: You may not be able to imagine doing it, but you never know until you find yourself in that situation.

b: actually false accusations are pretty ordinary. Hell, according to the Innocence Project, out of all of the cases where a conviction has been overturned because it was proven that the accused was innocent, 25% of them falsely confessed. About an equal number to that accused or cast doubts upon another person. Or my favorite "saw an unidentified black man fleeing the scene".

c: It pays to be specific. Amanda Knox did not accuse her boss of committing the crime. Which is to say, she never said "No it wasn't me it my boss". The police told her that Lumumba did it, that they had the proof, and they could prove she was in on it. And there's nothing wrong with that. That's a standard police technique. As is the offer that follows where they give her a chance to explain it so it doesn't look so bad for her. Which she did, and clearly it was a lie, and she shouldn't have done that. But she recanted the statement like, the next day. She didn't hold onto that story for weeks or months. She admitted it was a lie almost immediately. Which means she broke, but that doesn't make her a terrible person or a killer. If she had stuck to the story of her maniac killer boss the whole way through, that would make her a bad person. But at worst it means that her moral caliber is in question when she reached the limits of her emotional endurance, and that's probably true of most people.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Just a general observation, but it's almost impossible not to "lie" when being interrogated, simply because often the interrogator is usually trying to steer you to a pre-determined point and will keep asking different versions of the same questions.

Oh god.....

"Did you do it?"....."no".

"Did you do it?"......"no".

"Did you ******* do it!?"...."no!"

"Yes you ******* did!"....."I can't have done, because it was the ******* bar manager!!!!".

I mean.....

Just be reasonable about it:

a) There was never enough evidence to convict her.

b) She's a wrong 'un. I can't possibly imagine pointing the finger at an innocent man, and, actually, it's highly unusual in a police interview. So, no amount of: "she was confused/impressionable" will wash. 99.9% of people interviewed by the police do not accuse an innocent man. Only the wrong 'uns do that.

[Ally]

I agree with everything you said above including liking most cops. I admire the job they do. But it is a fact that they are in a position of authority and it is incredibly easy for them to completely f..k up someone's life, just by being convinced of their opinion without any real facts to back it up.

[Magpie]

Just a general observation, but it's almost impossible not to "lie" when being interrogated, simply because often the interrogator is usually trying to steer you to a pre-determined point and will keep asking different versions of the same questions. It's not even limited to suspects--witnesses get the same treatment too. An example: Many years ago I was robbed at gunpoint while working. When the constable took my statement, I gave a description of the robber. The next day a detective came to the store. Both times I describe the robber the same way, including answering "no" to the question of whether he had any facial hair. A couple of week's later the detective called me to the cop shop to make my official statement and once again give a description--when asked about his hair colour, I again mentioned that he was wearing a knit cap, but that from the appearance of his long sideburns I would guess it was black.

Next thing I know my boss is telling me that the detective told him that I knew the person who had robbed the store and was protecting him. When I phone the detective and asked him what the hell he was talking about his response was that I'd lied about the description. He had the good grace to say that he didn't think I'd actually been involved in the robbery, but suggested that I was afraid of reprisals if I named the robber.

And the lie? That I'd twice told the police that the suspect had no facial hair, but then finally admitted that he had sideburns. This was the "lie" that I'd told. I pointed out to him that had he said something to me at the time, I would have pointed out the obvious--that I didn't (and still don't) consider sideburns to be "facial hair", and had assumed that their initial question were referring to a mustache or beard.

Instead, for him that was "evidence" that I was lying, which in turn came up with this "theory" that I could have identified the robber but didn't--I guess I should have considered myself lucky that he didn't try to claim it was an inside job.

Btw, I later found out that a woman who was out walking her dog saw a man running from the scene, and her description was pretty much the same as mine (she'd left for a vacation before the police could interview her and therefore didn't have her corroboration before phoning my boss).


As a whole, I like cops--I have family who are cops, and I've always been pro-police. But when you have a cop who is also an a**hole, they can do a hell of a lot more damage than your garden-variety a**hole, often with fewer consequences.

[Ally]

Yawn.

[Chris]

... your contributions to this thread so far is: READ THIS BLOG and "Ally is a worthless bitch".

Just in case anyone gets the idea that I posted anything remotely resembling that phrase you've put in quotation marks, of course I didn't. What I actually said was "I read more rational discussion on that blog in half an hour today than I've seen in a lifetime of your Casebook postings."

Taking this latest outburst as a sample of your contributions, I doubt anyone will find that particularly implausible.

[Ally]

You know what I love most? I love babies who start a personal argument and then get tweaked when it gets turned around on them. Here ya go sweetie:

It'll all be better when your nappies get changed.

Yes, I need to back up my opinions with facts. What I don't need to do is back up my opinions with facts to you, because frankly, you aren't worth the time. That blog is crap, and I have backed up my opinion by stating that they get several things wrong and I've named a few. That is about all you are worth in terms of time and effort, considering your contributions to this thread so far is: READ THIS BLOG and "Ally is a worthless bitch". AS both are equally irrelevant in terms of the actual case, I am going back to my original premise:

You are a waste of time and from now on, that's how I treat you. An idiot and a waste of time. Enjoy reaping. If anyone else wants to have an actual conversation on the case, and not Chris' precious blog and its holy merits, THAT I'll be happy to discuss.

[Chris]

Oh, and by the way, it really is a bit rich for you to accuse me of ad hominem arguments. It's only a few days since you described me as "a complete idiot who doesn't know his hole from a hole in the ground"!