Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox Conviction Overturned #22

[SkewedView]

I still cant get over the fact that she was willing to accuse someone innocent of this crime. Hopefully she will get some drug counseling and her parents wake up and see her for not being so innocent.

My thoughts to Meredith's family.

Drug counseling? For what, smoking some pot four years ago? So does that mean that we need to send a third of all American college students to drug counseling?

As for the accusation, the ease with which people can be led to do such things during even standard interrogations is something that one either accepts, or doesn't. I've now come to accept that, being that we are limited to anecdotal evidence and studies based on experimentation alone, it is very difficult to get past the seemingly reasonable premise that 'good people don't do things like that, no matter what'. Thus I concede that yours is one of two legitimate yet diametrically opposed viewpoints on an issue that will never be resolved.

 

[SMK]

Cute how the writer complains about people spreading misinformation to slant coverage, then goes ahead and does so herself, by offering things as proof (or examples of behavior that are supposed to be disgusting) without offering context, only innuendo and false comparisons - a classic propaganda tactic.

It's probably not on purpose, however. As a victim's advocate, it is natural to assume guilt and fully trust what the prosecution presents while discounting the defense, not to mention that in that position one deals with a lot of disgusting and pathetic defenses of truly, blatantly guilty people.

Nevertheless, it is her opening paragraph that I find disgusting, with its twisting of perfectly reasonable behavior into something to be loathed.

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[SMK]

Latest from Frank Sfarzo at Perugia Shock:

Mignini, te l’avevo detto!

At the beginning we only had a couple of useless pieces of paper (top secret but distributed to the press&#8230.
On the most ridiculous one it was written “I remember confusedly that Patrick killed Meredith”…

Sure… Imagine that a friend comes to your place, rapes and kills your roommate and you remember it “confusedly”…
In truth that text only revealed the quality of its writer (who certainly wasn’t Amanda). But there’s no problem in Perugia: people get fooled by pieces of paper!

So I was going to meet Mignini in the attempt of knowing something of the “closed case”, which I considered not closed at all. Instead of answering my questions, he had questions for me.
So I happened to tell him that if all they had was two statements written by the police and not confirmed by Amanda and Raffaele, then they had nothing.
Then the DNA came and… same thing. Not a knife with blood on it but a piece of paper with “victim’s DNA” written on it. Then another piece of paper with “suspect’s DNA” written on it.

I was telling him they had nothing, that Amanda and Raffaele had to be freed, but instead of listening to the advice of a friend (because I offered my friendship to everyone, especially to Mignini) he would repay only with suspicions and insults.
According to Mignini the case was bigger than myself (I was researching theories of everything but a theory about who was in a room one night was bigger that myself&#8230. Or I knew nothing of law (then we have seen who doesn’t know what law is&#8230. Or I was paid by the family (instead of paying for their lawyers or their trips they were paying me&#8230. Or I was not a real journalist (real journalists are the ones who have their articles dictated by him&#8230.

Please admire what real journalists (slightly local) need to write in order to survive in Mignini’s town:

“…We can only stand with the side of Perugia who was screaming shame tonight… They called crazy a magistrate as courageous as Mignini. They won, but they will not convince us. We stand with Mignini, with Comodi, with the police…”

It looks like to work as a journalist in Mignini’s town, and to be not arrested, not only you have tell facts in the right way, you even have to praise him and the police, you even have to explicitly state that you are on his side!

When the police-state established in Mignini’s town will undergo a trial articles like this, self-humiliations like this, will constitute important evidence… For the moment better not to go to Perugia and, if you are there, go away: it’s dangerous.

http://perugiashock.com/

 

[emyr]

"What’s more galling? Amanda Knox making out with her co-defendant boyfriend hours after Meredith Kercher was stabbed to death, or Amanda Knox crying tears of self-pleasure after being acquitted of murder despite overwhelming evidence of her guilt?

The most horrifying part of this story is the way it proves our collective stupidity. If a guilty criminal spends enough money on PR, we can be persuaded that up is down, and a murderer is a national hero."

http://www.enterprisenews.com/archi...shadows-facts-in-Knox-acquittal#ixzz1aJhNTolg

See, yet another perfect example

"crying tears of self-pleasure" and "overwhelming evidence of her guilt"
Obviously, the evidence wasn't overwhelming, or she wouldn't have been acquited. Overwhelming evidence of guilt is a photograph of the blood-soaked bathroom Amanda showered in (doesn't exist), or the bleach receipts from bleach she purchased the morning of the murder (doesn't exist), or bloody clothes from the murder (also doesn't exist). The evidence isn't overwhelming. Quite frankly, this case has been tried at an international level, and a whole host of international experts have come forward (without pay) to state that the forensics are shoddy. I appreciate that the original experts continue to provide explanations for why their forensics weren't shoddy (and I do find some of it compelling), but there is clear reasonable doubt here about the quality of the evidence.

Also, just as obviously, the proof of her innocence wasn't overwhelming, or she wouldn't have been convicted in the first place. There is no clear-cut unimpeachable evidence that they were at Sollecito's that night. Hopefully the computers will finally be able to be analyzed and provide them a rock-solid alibi, but without that (or a confession from Guede or perhaps even Kokamani) there will always be lingering suspicion and doubt for some people.

It does disturb me that I have seen zero people who think they are guilty (on the PMF and other forums) have any interest in the totally suspicious and bizarre Kokomani story. i.e. zero interest in pursuing the topic or giving it any credence.

 

[Boytwnmom]

if she's innocent, as I believe, how would she know back then who had committed the crime? You have ILE finding her message to PL and saw him waiting for her the next day or thereabouts and perhaps had other reasons for suspecting him and they interrogate her for many hours and lie to her, telling her that her alibi witness says she went out and that she was there and saw the murder and to just "imagine" it. Her alleged confession implicating PL was obviously a fantasy and clearly had language before, during and after indicating she didn't believe it was real as it clearly was not as neither she nor PL were guilty. But all the problems for PL began here with ILE not Amanda and they were the ones who arrested him.

Whatever PL's problems were they were nowhere near as severe as Amanda's who was imprisoned for years with no evidence of guilt. PL was quickly released but she was not. She had no idea who killed Meredith as was evidenced by her going along with ILE who persecuted the wrong guy until RG came to light. At least ILE rearranged their tall tale to include RG instead of PL but Amanda and RS were not so lucky-ILE couldn't back down form the bizarre and ridiculous tale they had publicly spun.

And, seriously, drug counseling? She's been in jil for 4 years. What kind of drugs do you imagine she's been doing? Just because a young person smokes some pot doesn't mean they have a drug problem anyway.

I still cant get over the fact that she was willing to accuse someone innocent of this crime. Hopefully she will get some drug counseling and her parents wake up and see her for not being so innocent.

My thoughts to Meredith's family.

 

[Boytwnmom]

once you realize that

Murphy has also said that she has "never, ever met a false rape claim."

and another gem from the Duke rape case where, of course, the accused were actually innocent despite her vehement claims to the contrary based upon her absolute knowledge that there are no false rape claims:

“Stop with the presumption of innocence. It doesn’t apply to Duke . . . When they make administrative decisions about student behavior they don’t owe them any due process.” “I’m really tired of people suggesting that you’re somehow un-American if you don’t respect the presumption of innocence, because you know what that sounds like to a victim? Presumption you’re a liar.” “How about the defense attorneys shutting up.”

Cute how the writer complains about people spreading misinformation to slant coverage, then goes ahead and does so herself, by offering things as proof (or examples of behavior that are supposed to be disgusting) without offering context, only innuendo and false comparisons - a classic propaganda tactic.

It's probably not on purpose, however. As a victim's advocate, it is natural to assume guilt and fully trust what the prosecution presents while discounting the defense, not to mention that in that position one deals with a lot of disgusting and pathetic defenses of truly, blatantly guilty people.

Nevertheless, it is her opening paragraph that I find disgusting, with its twisting of perfectly reasonable behavior into something to be loathed.

 

[Sonata]

I'd like to thank Otto for his forwarding of Wendy J. Murphy's article. Here's one I prefer, by Deborah Orr for The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/05/amanda-knox-making-of-she-devil

 

[flourish]

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

I have had to TM the spelling of my designer straight jackets

As well my quirky sense of humour recalled an exchange about finger nails and a book deal and finger nails (you have no idea how many threads I had to search for this)

Quote from flourish

"LOL, yeah, I'll be storming the bookstore doors for that one. Right after I pull my own fingernails out with a pair of needle-nose pliers."

I replied that maybe a glass of wine might be more soothing lol

Wonders if flourish will be buying the 4,000,000 copy of her book now :innocent:

I would ask that you dispose of any pliers you may own first :giggle:

Uh, oh, am I gonna lose grade points on my postings because of my spelling? :giggle:

Well, you missed this post, which will answer your question re: my book-buying intentions (emboldened below) My husband and budget appreciate the concern though.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7184028&postcount=1055

I was also hoping her statement this morning wasn't going to be "me me me," but IMO, it seemed that way (granted this was her appeal, but it still felt weird to me).

I, too, would like an explanation, but I think we've already got what we're gonna get (the cops made me say it). Besides, would any explanation she gave carry much weight at this point?

In any case, I certainly won't be giving AK or RS any money in the future (ie: books, movies, etc.).

 

[otto]

See, yet another perfect example

"crying tears of self-pleasure" and "overwhelming evidence of her guilt"
Obviously, the evidence wasn't overwhelming, or she wouldn't have been acquited. Overwhelming evidence of guilt is a photograph of the blood-soaked bathroom Amanda showered in (doesn't exist), or the bleach receipts from bleach she purchased the morning of the murder (doesn't exist), or bloody clothes from the murder (also doesn't exist). The evidence isn't overwhelming. Quite frankly, this case has been tried at an international level, and a whole host of international experts have come forward (without pay) to state that the forensics are shoddy. I appreciate that the original experts continue to provide explanations for why their forensics weren't shoddy (and I do find some of it compelling), but there is clear reasonable doubt here about the quality of the evidence.

Also, just as obviously, the proof of her innocence wasn't overwhelming, or she wouldn't have been convicted in the first place. There is no clear-cut unimpeachable evidence that they were at Sollecito's that night. Hopefully the computers will finally be able to be analyzed and provide them a rock-solid alibi, but without that (or a confession from Guede or perhaps even Kokamani) there will always be lingering suspicion and doubt for some people.

It does disturb me that I have seen zero people who think they are guilty (on the PMF and other forums) have any interest in the totally suspicious and bizarre Kokomani story. i.e. zero interest in pursuing the topic or giving it any credence.

There has been a lot of discussion about Kokomani at PMF, even in recent days.

 

[Madeleine74]

Great point made in the 48 Hrs show.

If Amanda was there at the cottage the night of the murder, how come she didn't know RUDY GUEDE was there and instead fingered P.L.?

That alone tells you she wasn't there. Because not only was evidence of Rudy there, he ADMITTED he was there and had a dying Meredith Kercher in his arms.

 

[otto]

Great point made in the 48 Hrs show.

If Amanda was there at the cottage the night of the murder, how come she didn't know RUDY GUEDE was there and instead fingered P.L.?

That alone tells you she wasn't there. Because not only was evidence of Rudy there, he ADMITTED he was there and had a dying Meredith Kercher in his arms.

I thought that was a funny remark. She knew that there was a rape, murder, scream and multiple murderers before the police knew it. The fact that she volunteered Patrick to police as the murderer suggests that she was trying to buy some time - that's not hard to figure out.

 

[SMK]

I thought that was a funny remark. She knew that there was a rape, murder, scream and multiple murderers before the police knew it. The fact that she volunteered Patrick to police as the murderer suggests that she was trying to buy some time - that's not hard to figure out.

The police suspected Patrick before Amanda did; the police suspected multiple participants before Amanda did - they volunteered PL to her, you have it all stood on its head, my friend.

 

[otto]

The police suspected Patrick before Amanda did; the police suspected multiple participants before Amanda did - they volunteered PL to her, you have it all stood on its head, my friend.

I know that Edda stated in the 48 hour show that police suggested Patrick, but Knox testified that they did not suggest Patrick, she stated that she introduced Patrick's name. Was she being coerced when she testified to that?

 

[Madeleine74]

SMK has it correct.

It's really sad when the basic details of the case are so skewed (purposefully perhaps, I don't know) to try and bring more hatred and vitriol to what is now an innocent and wrongfully-accused young woman and man. Haven't they suffered enough? At this point I'm starting to think the world has gone mad and is unable to separate fact from fiction.

 

[otto]

I still cant get over the fact that she was willing to accuse someone innocent of this crime. Hopefully she will get some drug counseling and her parents wake up and see her for not being so innocent.

My thoughts to Meredith's family.

Even if she was completely crushed in the two hours of questioning leading up to her statement that Patrick committed rape and murder, she had two weeks in which to tell the police the truth - and she did not. Those are not the actions of an innocent person - in my opinion.

 

[SMK]

I know that Edda stated in the 48 hour show that police suggested Patrick, but Knox testified that they did not suggest Patrick, she stated that she introduced Patrick's name. Was she being coerced when she testified to that?

She introduced his name, because they would not stop going on about the text message he sent, which she replied to. They told her she was covering for this person. How did she know PL did not do it?

 

[otto]

SMK has it correct.

It's really sad when the basic details of the case are so skewed (purposefully perhaps, I don't know) to try and bring more hatred and vitriol to what is now an innocent and wrongfully-accused young woman and man. Haven't they suffered enough? At this point I'm starting to think the world has gone mad and is unable to separate fact from fiction.

Basic details are very important because the facts of the case are being completely skewed by programs like the 48 hours program. Amanda was being questioned about who brought up Patrick's name. After avoiding the question every which way she could, she finally stated the following:

GCM: But they didn't literally say that it was him!

AK: No. They didn't say it was him, but they said "We know who it is, we know
who it is. You were with him, you met him."

Note: "they" refers to police and "him" refers to Patrick.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=80193

 

[otto]

She introduced his name, because they would not stop going on about the text message he sent, which she replied to. They told her she was covering for this person. How did she know PL did not do it?

She introduced his name because, according to her, they used a common police tactic of claiming that they knew who did it and suggesting that she knew who did it.

Knox told her mother after Patrick's arrest that she knew Patrick was innocent. The bigger question is how she knew that he was innocent.

 

[RoseMontague]

I know that Edda stated in the 48 hour show that police suggested Patrick, but Knox testified that they did not suggest Patrick, she stated that she introduced Patrick's name. Was she being coerced when she testified to that?

It depends on how you interpret her testimony. This part is pretty clear, imo.

AK: Honestly, I thought, like the police had told me -- the police had told me they had already found the guilty person. And they had suggested Patrick so much that I thought maybe it really was him. But apart from that, in that memorandum that I wrote in prison, the important thing for me was to tell what I knew, and what I knew was where I was on that evening.

 

[RoseMontague]

She introduced his name because, according to her, they used a common police tactic of claiming that they knew who did it and suggesting that she knew who did it.

Knox told her mother after Patrick's arrest that she knew Patrick was innocent. The bigger question is how she knew that he was innocent.

She figured out the cops were lying liars.