Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[Nova]

For example?

So you are suggesting the prosecution go look for the 'imaginary' evidence that totally exonerates AK and RS, but not the defense :waitasec: ???
Interesting view if it is :innocent: .

This has been explained to you time and again. If other posters seem short-tempered, your repeatedly ignoring their posts might be a cause of the irritation.

It is ILE's job to collect evidence, whether or not it supports their preconceived theories of a crime. ILE did not do its job in Perugia and continues to fail to do its job.

Furthermore, there are chain-of-custody issues.

If it were a simple matter of walking over one afternoon and retrieving the missing keys, I'm sure one of AK's or RS' relatives or attorneys would have done so.

But let's turn the question around: if ILE is so sure the missing items are NOT where this convict claims them to be, why doesn't ILE get a warrant and check?

 

[Nova]

Of course you don't believe Filomena's testimony, but the important thing is the judges and jurors did. I've thrown alot of rocks in my day, could I have been the defense expert?

Could you possibly post the testimony that 'CONFIRMED' it was MK and RG and who made such confirmation? :waitasec:

Actually, I do believe that Filomena saw some glass on some items in her room, or at the very least, believes she did. That, however, is not a comprehensive forensic evaluation.

 

[dgfred]

What I "admitted" was that my own snarkiness was due to my frustration with the disingenuous word games of pro-guilters. At the time I did not mean you.

But now you post this...

What are you talking about?

I didn't say you meant me, only your explanation for some snarkiness.

The frustration should be on my part... since you seem to do this every time and twist the words to make it 'look' different or fit your own theory. :banghead:

 

[dgfred]

This has been explained to you time and again. If other posters seem short-tempered, your repeatedly ignoring their posts might be a cause of the irritation.

It is ILE's job to collect evidence, whether or not it supports their preconceived theories of a crime. ILE did not do its job in Perugia and continues to fail to do its job.

Furthermore, there are chain-of-custody issues.

If it were a simple matter of walking over one afternoon and retrieving the missing keys, I'm sure one of AK's or RS' relatives or attorneys would have done so.

But let's turn the question around: if ILE is so sure the missing items are NOT where this convict claims them to be, why doesn't ILE get a warrant and check?

Well, THIS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO YOU TIME AND TIME AGAIN... AND TIME AGAIN. :maddening: Nobody is 'ignoring' your post, just pointing out were you are mistaken or wrong. Irritation is correct, and it is growing.

The prosecution has basically 'won' their original case, why would they do anything at all mess up a 'WIN'? Thinking otherwise, regardless of looking for imaginary evidence for the defense, is silly IMO.

 

[dgfred]

Actually, I do believe that Filomena saw some glass on some items in her room, or at the very least, believes she did. That, however, is not a comprehensive forensic evaluation.

The main part of my post was the question to Allu:

Who testified to the verification of Meredith and RG in that video?

 

[Nova]

What are you talking about?

I didn't say you meant me, only your explanation for some snarkiness.

The frustration should be on my part... since you seem to do this every time and twist the words to make it 'look' different or fit your own theory. :banghead:

How 'bout you own your own posting strategies? Or at least take responsibility when you post something that is unclear?

You decided to bring me into the issue, citing my "frustration" but deliberately omitting what I had posted as the reason for that frustration. Now I think it's perfectly natural to edit quotes for purposes of focus, but in this case, you invited the reader to assume I was "frustrated" because I thought I was losing an argument or because I had personal problems at home or because I'd forgotten to take my Prozac.

That is NOT a fair use of citation. It may have been accidental on your part (though frankly I think you were playing "gotcha": "Here, look, someone who usually agrees with you CONFESSES he is frustrated."), but that hardly matters.

 

[dgfred]

How 'bout you own your own posting strategies? Or at least take responsibility when you post something that is unclear?

You decided to bring me into the issue, citing my "frustration" but deliberately omitting what I had posted as the reason for that frustration. Now I think it's perfectly natural to edit quotes for purposes of focus, but in this case, you invited the reader to assume I was "frustrated" because I thought I was losing an argument or because I had personal problems at home or because I'd forgotten to take my Prozac.

That is NOT a fair use of citation. It may have been accidental on your part (though frankly I think you were playing "gotcha": "Here, look, someone who usually agrees with you CONFESSES he is frustrated."), but that hardly matters.

I posted exactly what you posted about frustration and the reasons you stated.

I didn't 'invite' any reader to assume anything, in fact I was rebutting Allu's post at me. I hadn't even thought of the reasons you claim... but now I do wonder somewhat. Chomping some of that Prozac might be needed, do you have any extra? :crazy:

 

[Nova]

Well, THIS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO YOU TIME AND TIME AGAIN... AND TIME AGAIN. :maddening: Nobody is 'ignoring' your post, just pointing out were you are mistaken or wrong. Irritation is correct, and it is growing.

The prosecution has basically 'won' their original case, why would they do anything at all mess up a 'WIN'? Thinking otherwise, regardless of looking for imaginary evidence for the defense, is silly IMO.

BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO!

Because the prosecution--in Italy as well as the U.S.--has a different burden than the defense. The defense only has to raise reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant.

The prosecution, along with the police, has an obligation to discover and reveal the truth of a murder. It is ILE's job to vet witnesses and collect evidence. The Perugia police should get a warrant and go look for the damn keys (and, if my guess is correct, put an end to this whole subject when no keys are discovered).

The system you propose, wherein the prosecution and police are only responsible for inventing one theory and collecting only whatever evidence will prove that theory, is a truly horrifying one! It is also exactly what has happened to date in Perugia and why there has been such a miscarriage of justice. It may also be why half of all Italian convictions are reversed on appeal.

If you believe I and others are wrong about this, by all means show where I have erred. But merely repeating "Why doesn't the defense go and do ILE's job?" over and over isn't actually a rebuttal.

 

[Nova]

The main part of my post was the question to Allu:

Who testified to the verification of Meredith and RG in that video?

I'm not ignoring you here, fred. I don't know. The video linked above is the wrong video anyway.

I seem to remember something about light clothing v. dark clothing, but I don't know who or how it was decided who appears on the correct video.

 

[dgfred]

:floorlaugh:
It would be SMART for the defense to do it, and RIGHT too.

 

[Nova]

I posted exactly what you posted about frustration and the reasons you stated.

I didn't 'invite' any reader to assume anything, in fact I was rebutting Allu's post at me. I hadn't even thought of the reasons you claim... but now I do wonder somewhat. Chomping some of that Prozac might be needed, do you have any extra? :crazy:

Just to be clear, I was just using colorful language with the Prozac reference. I was neither embarrassed nor offended by your paraphrase of my post.

I merely found it misleading and explained why.

ETA: but your paraphrase speaks very much to the heart of my frustration. It seems impossible to have a serious conversation with pro-guilters, because one's words are constant fodder for "hijinks" and distortion. I tried to be fair and honest and not only admit to some snarkiness, but explain why. In my view, that honesty didn't inspire candor from others; instead, my honesty was then used against me.

 

[dgfred]

Just to be clear, I was just using colorful language with the Prozac reference. I was neither embarrassed nor offended by your paraphrase of my post.

I merely found it misleading and explained why.

OK buddy. Let's call a truce... not enough intelligent posting in this thread anyway.

To also be clear, I wasn't trying to and didn't mean to embarrass or offend you at all. Didn't want or try to mislead either. :truce:

I wasn't changing words, twisting or anything else. I understood exactly what you were frustrated about... and at the moment only me and otto are here for the 'other side' so your candor was safe from my end, I just think you misinterpreted my other post to Allu.

 

[Nova]

:floorlaugh:
It would be SMART for the defense to do it, and RIGHT too.

So you concede that you don't expect principled behavior from ILE.

Well, you won't be disappointed.

 

[Nova]

OK buddy. Let's call a truce... not enough intelligent posting in this thread anyway.

To also be clear, I wasn't trying to and didn't mean to embarrass or offend you at all. Didn't want or try to mislead either. :truce:

I wasn't changing words, twisting or anything else. I understood exactly what you were frustrated about... and at the moment only me and otto are here for the 'other side' so your candor was safe from my end, I just think you misinterpreted my other post to Allu.

Sorry. I posted my previous snark before I read your offer of a truce.

Offer accepted: :truce:

But you get one free snark at my expense at any time in the future...

 

[dgfred]

So you concede that you don't expect principled behavior from ILE.

Well, you won't be disappointed.

Dang, you are in rare form today. :rocker:

If I'm their defense attorney... I go and look, especially if I just brought forth a witness to claim they are there. You are right, I see no 'principled behavior' in doing the defense job for them. If I am ILE, I am perfectly happy with how the case has gone so far, why would I 'mess' it up in ANY way?
I really can not understand your view on this point :waitasec: , but maybe I never will.

 

[Nova]

Dang, you are in rare form today. :rocker:

If I'm their defense attorney... I go and look, especially if I just brought forth a witness to claim they are there. You are right, I see no 'principled behavior' in doing the defense job for them. If I am ILE, I am perfectly happy with how the case has gone so far, why would I 'mess' it up in ANY way?
I really can not understand your view on this point :waitasec: , but maybe I never will.

I'm sorry, fred, but you can't be a(n ethical) prosecutor with that attitude. The prosecutor's (and by extension the police's) ethical obligations are different from those of the defense. Merely defending "your side" isn't enough.

I'm looking for a brief and clear cite on the subject, but thus far, I've only found lengthy case studies on cites that require registration. I'll keep looking.

 

[Nova]

Actually, here's a good summary. It's from Illinois, but the basic principles are the same everywhere in the U.S. (and I suspect in Italy).

http://www.henrycty.com/codepartments/stateatty/aboutprosecutor.htm

The duty of a public prosecutor or other government lawyer is to seek justice, not merely to convict.

Per Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor#Italy



Italian prosecutors are also responsible for achieving justice, not just winning cases. Don't get me wrong, I think the witness who claims he hid the keys and weapon for his brother is full of it, but his claims should be checked by ILE.

 

[Allusonz]

I don't understand what I'm supposed to see. There seems to be a group of six or so people, including a couple of children. ?????

OOOOPPPS :innocent:

It appears that they have changed that video sorry all.

I have posted the original before. It does show MK walking home and will try and find it this weekend when things are not quite so crazy at the office. There is also one showing AK and RS leaving in the afternoon as well as RG

I sincerely apologize to you all. Maybe they have taken them off but if not will try and get them reposted

 

[Allusonz]

I'm not ignoring you here, fred. I don't know. The video linked above is the wrong video anyway.

I seem to remember something about light clothing v. dark clothing, but I don't know who or how it was decided who appears on the correct video.

Yes you are right Nova. They were able to determine whom it was by the clothing. Obviously they probably have either a better copy and knew what each person was wearing as that is how they able to distinguish who each person was

 

[Allusonz]

What does that have to do with him standing up and accusing AK of being the cause of it ALL? He could do that or even stand up and say they both had nothing to do with it... right?

His self-serving statements are not what I am asking about.

It means fred that the TOD is placed between 9:00 - 9:30 as by 10:00 the stomach contents would of been in the duodenum. If AK and RS were still watching the movie at 9:10 and opened the cartoon at 9:26 they could not of been there