Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#9

[Cappuccino]

Really? Is Knox a poor little victim ... again? Is that really what is going on? Is this lawyer also a liar?

Why does Knox link her website to Meredith's family? They have asked her to stay away from them and to stay away from the cemetery where Meredith is buried. They want nothing to do with her.

Why is Knox unable to respect the murder victim and her family?

If this lawyer claimed Knox is raising money on her website for some unspecified project in Meredith's name, then yes he is a liar.

As for including a link, (one among many), to the Kercher's website, I bet if she hadn't included that link she'd be accused of something for that too.

 

[Cappuccino]

Personally I do not care what is on her site and feel no need to defend her. I never asserted to her collecting funds for something undisclosed.

I simply think her linking to the Meredith kercher fund or whatever she's doing is distasteful. Good gesture that she may have intended, like so many other things Amanda has done it was premature.

She is being tried for their daughters murder.

Of course Maresca is biased. He is a civil attorney in this trial not a prosecutor.

I never questioned whether Maresca should or should not be biased, I am questioning why someone with such an obvious bias is allowed to speak to the court at this stage. There's already a prosecutor there to give the case for the prosecution, why is Maresca needed? Do the defendants get a civil lawyer to speak about why they're entitled to damages for wrongful conviction at this stage? I'm guessing not.

Maybe another issue there for Amanda's lawyers to take to the ECHR. Its no wonder Italy has more judgements against it for unfair trials at the ECHR than even Turkey and Russia.

 

[otto]

It's a lie that was told in court to try and paint Amanda as something evil and sinister. Since Amanda was tried for the death of Meredith, she of course has a section on her site about Meredith. Unfortunately for the Kercher's Amanda will always have a tie to Meredith. If they wish to blame someone for this then they need to look to those that have repeatedly accused Amanda wrongfully. It is a sweet gesture on Amanda's part to have those that visit her website the option of going to Meredith's site to donate money to her family.

As far as the bolded part, this is NOTHING like the Jodi Arias case. Jodi admitted to killing Travis. There was ample evidence that she in fact did it. She was found guilty of it by a jury of her peers and that conviction has not been overturned on appeal. Amanda has always maintained her innocence. Jodi was going to profit from the "Survivor" shirt, Amanda is not.

MOO

Meredith's lawyer is a liar, right?

 

[TorisMom003]

Meredith's lawyer is a liar, right?

If the lawyer stands up in a court of law and states a lie that is easily proven to be a lie, then yes that lawyer is a liar. There is NOTHING on Amanda's website where she is requesting donations for any kind of memorial for Meredith of her choosing. That is what he stated in court, on the record. There is simply a link that takes one to the Meredith Kercher Fund that is controlled by the Kerchers.

MOO

 

[Cappuccino]

Meredith's lawyer is a liar, right?

He's not Meredith's lawyer, he's the lawyer retained by the Kercher family to secure them a massive multi million euro payout. They won't get that if penniless Rudy Guede is convicted on his own.

 

[otto]

So the statement Maresca made to the court was highly misleading then? One might even call it a lie.

I think we need proof that Knox, at no time, ever placed a statement anywhere on her website where she solicited funds in the name of Meredith. If there is no proof, then why would a victim friendly website want to smear the reputation of the victim by labelling her lawyer a liar?

That is, if the voice for the victim is to be labelled a liar (along with everyone else in the justice system in Italy) I think there needs a link.

 

[otto]

He's not Meredith's lawyer, he's the lawyer retained by the Kercher family to secure them a massive multi million euro payout. They won't get that if penniless Rudy Guede is convicted on his own.

In Italy, the victim is allowed a voice - a legal spokesperson. The lawyer that is representing Meredith is paid by her family, but he is representing the victim. Please provide a link proving that in Italy, the victim is not represented by a lawyer in a criminal proceeding.

So now the victim's lawyer is acting in bad faith because he is only interested in money?

How about this headline: "Victim's lawyer seeks Amanda Knox conviction for murder"

http://www.aol.com/article/2013/12/...s-amanda-knox-conviction-for-murder/20789464/

 

[otto]

If this lawyer claimed Knox is raising money on her website for some unspecified project in Meredith's name, then yes he is a liar.

As for including a link, (one among many), to the Kercher's website, I bet if she hadn't included that link she'd be accused of something for that too.

That's a funny bit of logic, isn't it. The family wants nothing to do with the convicted murderer and has said so. The victim's lawyer has described Knox's unwillingness to respect that request. This is where the funny logic happens: if Knox did not continue to harass the family, the family would complain about it.

Do we have a link to demonstrate that this what Meredith's family would do?

 

[TorisMom003]

I think we need proof that Knox, at no time, ever placed a statement anywhere on her website where she solicited funds in the name of Meredith. If there is no proof, then why would a victim friendly website want to smear the reputation of the victim by labelling her lawyer a liar?

That is, if the voice for the victim is to be labelled a liar (along with everyone else in the justice system in Italy) I think there needs a link.

Round and round we go again. It was stated by the lawyer today, in a court of law, that Amanda was profiting from donations on her website in the name of Meredith for a memorial for her. Now, did he say that Amanda had this previously on her website and it was now no longer on there? Or did he instead make a claim to the court that Amanda was still profiting to this day?

If we, a website for victims, can not speak the truth about all involved then what point is there? Because a lawyer lies in court to smear one of the defendants, it has nothing to do with the victim that was killed. It does not smear her name at all. What it does is show that the lawyer her family chose is questionable in his accusations.

A link has been provided to Amanda's site proving that there is no such request for donations in Meredith's name where Amanda will receive the donations.

 

[otto]

Yes. I looked on Amanda's website, the entire thing, and there is no donation being asked for a special yet undetermined thing for Meredith. There is simply a link to the Meredith Kercher Fund that is NOT set up by Amanda.

Funny thing about websites, comments can appear and disappear in the blink of an eye. After the trial proceedings today, of course there's nothing on Knox's site about soliciting funds for some unspecified project in Meredith's name. She's not stupid. Knox would have removed that the minute the victim's lawyer spoke the words.

 

[TorisMom003]

That's a funny bit of logic, isn't it. The family wants nothing to do with the convicted murderer and has said so. The victim's lawyer has described Knox's unwillingness to respect that request. This is where the funny logic happens: if Knox did not continue to harass the family, the family would complain about it.

Do we have a link to demonstrate that this what Meredith's family would do?

The last part is in response to something that the OP said not about Meredith's family but instead about those here and other places on the web and in the world that find fault with everything Amanda does. A link is not needed to show that, one only needs to read this thread.

If I am wrong, I am sure the OP will correct me.

MOO

 

[otto]

Well, Maresca definitely asserted it, so presumably, there must be some source or reference whereof he speaks in open court:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mands-court-convict-murder.html#ixzz2nffeRaMy

You bet! It is absurd to labels the victim's lawyer a liar on the basis that he described Knox's ongoing failure to respect the victim.

Knox would have logged into her wordpress blog within minutes of the victim's lawyer describing her ongoing harassment in court, and removed her request for money in Meredith's name. Any claims that the information is missing on her blog today are 100% meaningless.

Even the cached page appears to be cleared.

 

[Cappuccino]

In Italy, the victim is allowed a voice - a legal spokesperson. The lawyer that is representing Meredith is paid by her family, but he is representing the victim. Please provide a link proving that in Italy, the victim is not represented by a lawyer in a criminal proceeding.

So now the victim's lawyer is acting in bad faith because he is only interested in money?

How about this headline: "Victim's lawyer seeks Amanda Knox conviction for murder"

http://www.aol.com/article/2013/12/...s-amanda-knox-conviction-for-murder/20789464/

The victim is allowed a voice in every civilised justice system, its called the State prosecutor. Maresca is not the state prosecutor, he has no interest in impartial justice, he is a civil lawyer whose interest is to sue for a multi million euro settlement for his clients - the Kercher family. He should be speaking to a separate court formed for the purposes of civil proceedings, not to a criminal court formed to decide guilt or innocence.

 

[TorisMom003]

Funny thing about websites, comments can appear and disappear in the blink of an eye. After the trial proceedings today, of course there's nothing on Knox's site about soliciting funds for some unspecified project in Meredith's name. She's not stupid. Knox would have removed that the minute the victim's lawyer spoke the words.

Is that an opinion or known as fact? If it is fact then of course a link can be provided, yes? Unless someone was sitting with Amanda during the time that the Kercher lawyer was speaking and watching her every move, then one can not say what Amanda did or did not do.

 

[otto]

Well, if Maresca is in any way mistaken , I am certain Knox's attorneys will be sure to clear this up in tomorrow's summation. They must certainly realize Maresca's words are now global headlines.

They will most likely claim that as of today, there is nothing on her website soliciting funds in Meredith's name. It takes 30 seconds to change content on a website.

 

[Katody]

I think that the judges will probably focus on the evidence the most, evidence during and around the time of the murder.

Just me personally, I find Amanda's website to be extremely distateful. She claims it's for remembering Meredith, that is just her putting a spin on it. It is clearly mostly for getting donations, and to keep her supporters happy and involved in her case, end result being of course, money and good publicity for her. For her. So how is that about Meredith?

No, I don't think it will or should affect the jury, as we've seen in Jodi Arias case, jurors didn't know about her tweets/selling art work/blah blah blah.

But on a personal level, I find it just very weird.

I think Amanda's site is subdued an tasteful. Obviously it's about the injustice and it makes it about Meredith very much. Meredith will not have peace while there is injustice perpetrated in her name.

The Kerchers are asking for donations online, they've put up a website for that purpose: Meredith Kercher's Fund.

Amanda just linked to their website on hers. That's all.

Amanda is not soliciting money in the name of Meredith. What Maresca does by spinning lies like this is extremely disgusting and it makes me doubt he has actual approval of the family for his actions, just like with the disturbing and disrespectful slideshow he presented to the media and public in court.

 

[otto]

I didn't see any of the guilters on this thread waiting to see what was really on Amanda's website before you called her all sorts of things - nasty, no respect for the family, this is now a business for her etc.

And I see Maresca is pushing for a 25 million euro payout for his clients, (out of which he will get paid). If Amanda and Raffaele are acquitted, goodbye to their payout. Why is someone with such obvious motive for bias even allowed to speak to the court at this stage?

Why would anyone care what Knox posts on her self-serving website. She is a convicted murder. Who cares what she published today. We know that the content is fluid. Today, the cat is out of the bag and no one is impressed, so of course she would remove her solicitation of funds in Meredith's name today.

In the US, when there is a civil suit, is it normal to slander the lawyer that is acting on behalf of the victim? Is the perception that the lawyer is "biased" when financial compensation is requested?

 

[otto]

If this lawyer claimed Knox is raising money on her website for some unspecified project in Meredith's name, then yes he is a liar.

As for including a link, (one among many), to the Kercher's website, I bet if she hadn't included that link she'd be accused of something for that too.

I think we need proof in the form of a link before the victim's lawyer should be labelled a liar. A link to the current, updated blog that Knox publishes is not sufficient, as we all know that it takes mere seconds to change the content on a blog.

 

[TorisMom003]

Why would anyone care what Knox posts on her self-serving website. She is a convicted murder. Who cares what she published today. We know that the content is fluid. Today, the cat is out of the bag and no one is impressed, so of course she would remove her solicitation of funds in Meredith's name today.

In the US, when there is a civil suit, is it normal to slander the lawyer that is acting on behalf of the victim? Is the perception that the lawyer is "biased" when financial compensation is requested?

BBM

A convicted murderer that won her appeal. It appears that part is always forgotten. That is why Italy is going for another conviction, yes? And why Italy is having this other trial.

 

[Cappuccino]

Why would anyone care what Knox posts on her self-serving website. She is a convicted murder. Who cares what she published today. We know that the content is fluid. Today, the cat is out of the bag and no one is impressed, so of course she would remove her solicitation of funds in Meredith's name today.

In the US, when there is a civil suit, is it normal to slander the lawyer that is acting on behalf of the victim? Is the perception that the lawyer is "biased" when financial compensation is requested?

I'm not American, I'm European so there's no point in asking me what happens in the US.

When a civil lawyer is retained for the purpose of securing an enormous payout, they should have no place in any criminal proceedings and the reasons for that should be obvious. Civil and criminal courts are kept separate for some very good reasons.