Meredith Kercher case

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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"!).

[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.

[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

[mariab]

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

[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.

[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

[caz]

So was Meredith.

You know - Meredith Kercher?



Love,

Caz
X

[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.

[Ally]

Well, now that Knowles and Sollecito have been found not guilty I suppose that the Italian Police will be leaving no stones unturned to find the real culprits ? ( from the marks on Meredith's body, and the lack of defense wounds, someone held her down for Guide).

Or you know, that tremendous blow she suffered to her face prior to her death knocked her sufficiently out that she didn't struggle or even know what was occurring during the stabbing due to being stunned. She is hit, beat, held down and raped (all which could occur by one person) all probably at knife point which could result in the superficial shallow cuts.

If someone hits you hard in the face, I guarantee you are going to be stunned for a bit and it's not beyond the realm to think you might be disoriented enough to not fight.

Oh and Knox.

[Ally]

I think you are both wrong and right.
Everyone's opinion IS in fact worth the same. And equally valid. "Because" is not typically useful in a debate, but it is valid.

I disagree entirely.

For example, I was convinced my neighbor was a drug dealer. Why? Because the people who went in his house gave me that vibe.

But I bet if pressed, you could come up with some legitimate reasons why the people gave you that "vibe". For example: general appearance, rate of traffic, people coming, staying ten minutes, then leaving, at regular intervals. You observed the people coming and going from his house and made a deduction based on that. That's not "just a vibe". That's a vibe based on observation of what was occurring in your environment. You even gave a reason to back up your opinion: the people you saw frequenting his house. That's not actually based on "just because".

Opinions, theories, hypotheses, all come out even in worth until the facts are ascertained. We can give points for degrees of right or wrong if we want, but in the end, it is either right or wrong. A well supported theory that turns out to be wrong is not better than an unsupported one that turns out to be right.

This is only true if you measure every discussion in terms of "right" and "wrong". The chances that anyone will ever be persuaded that they are wrong in the vast majority of instances being discussed on this forum is slim to none. So the only thing that actually matters in terms of discussion is how well you can support your opinion.

But the beauty of the opinion is that by definition it is neither right nor wrong. I hate olives. I think they taste nasty. I can't really support that statement, as I don't think olives are inherently evil or have a case against their consumption.

But you did support it. You said they taste nasty. Or you can say to you they taste like dirt. There's a large number of people who think cilantro tastes like dish soap. It turns out there's something genetic there, but before that was known, it's still valid and legitimate to say "I don't like cilantro because it tastes like dish soap". It's a lot more logical than saying I don't because.

I think Glenn Beck is quite possibly the most awful man in the US who hasn't killed or raped someone. I can support that statement through my opinions of his opinions, but I can't prove it, and I can't be dissuaded from it through any action other than my own.

Exactly. You could support it. You could give evidence of things he said or did that formed your opinion that he's an awful person. Which is all that's being requested here. No one asked for "proof" of an opinion. They were asked to support their opinion and if you aren't willing to support your statements on a discussion forum, what's the point of being on a discussion forum?

[Rubyretro]

I'm very, very busy at the mo' -so no time to read back through this thread..

Well, now that Knowles and Sollecito have been found not guilty I suppose that the Italian Police will be leaving no stones unturned to find the real culprits ? ( from the marks on Meredith's body, and the lack of defense wounds, someone held her down for Guide).