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

[Cappuccino]

It speaks to character. It is not unusual to describe the character of a murderer during an appeal.

It is not true that those that believe in morality are misogynists.

No, it does not speak to character. At least not in any way that is relevant to guilt or innocence at a murder trial, its merely an appeal to the prejudices of anyone who divides women into madonnas and - a classic misogynistic mindset.

 

[otto]

I know this has been discussed many times here, and it was taken out of context. The " I was there" comment was in reference to her being at Raffaele's NOT at the cottage.

http://mynorthwest.com/11/434462/Report-New-documents-show-Amanda-Knox-saying-I-was-there


"According to the author of "Murder in Italy, the Story of Amanda Knox," the quote was taken out of context and the "there" actually refers to Sollecito's apartment."

"'s mother, Edda Mellas, backed up that account in an email to KIRO-FM. "The prison conversation they are talking about was cleared up a couple of years ago," Mellas wrote. "It was totally taken out of context. Amanda was talking about being at Raf's house and said 'I can not believe they think I had anything to do with this, because I was there.' Again, meaning Raf's house."

There is controversy surrounding Knox's statement to her mother in prison where she said "I was there". Still, she said it, it was accepted during Guede's sentencing by the Supreme Court and now the lawyer for Meredith has repeated it. I don't recall anyone objecting when the statement was used during Guede's sentencing. Was it objected to, or was did nobody care at the time?

 

[redheadedgal]

Could you please provide a link.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#9

 

[aa9511]

I was on her website last night and as I look now there are definite changes.[/B

]Amanda, IMO, was trying to make it look like the Kerchers believed she was innocent. She credited them for pics of Merideth as if they had given her permission to use them.

She really is heartless. They asked her not to go to the gravesite so she doesn't have the sense to realize they want nothing to do with her? It's obvious that she has not grown past the things some had attributed to her youth etc.

bbm

Very interesting. I wish someone had taken screen shots of everything, LOL! Little did we know.....

The second part is also interesting. I did not think about that. But it makes a lot of sense.

 

[Katody]

In my opinion, that not not constitute labelling him a liar, by default. You need proof that he lied, as in proof that it was never at one point on her website. Which we simply don't know at this point.

You don't know this, not me.

Maresca is a disgusting liar, IMO. His pleas to memory of the "forgotten" victim while smearing the two still considered not guilty defendants and demanding millions from them will backfire badly.

I think his speech today was repetitive, failed to make the case on evidence, bored and turned the jury away. IMO, a fail.

 

[TorisMom003]

Iif this is the website you are referring to then both Merideth and Raffeales links have been removed since last night when I viewed it.

http://www.amandaknox.com/

Wrong. I checked that site today and posted that the links to the Meredith Kercher Fund and the Raffeale Sollecito Fund where posted there. In fact I just checked and they are STILL there. They are listed on the bottom of the Meredith Kercher Murder page.

 

[Amber29]

her book WTBH is about her life, including experiences while in italy to study. that included being accused of murder, put in jail, and enduring THREE trials.

the monies earned alowed her to pay off her debts (lawyers, parents, etc).

is wanting to pay off one's debts now considered a bad thing?




iirc, no, it is not mentioned in WTBH.

No what I disagree with is saying the Kerchers haven't handled this with dignity.
Who has a right to judge how a family handles their loved ones murder trial?

Or implying that their civil lawyer asking for money from the accused killers is wrong.

I also think the books were wrote prematurely and should've been held off until after a definate ruling.

That's is all.

 

[otto]

No, it does not speak to character. At least not in any way that is relevant to guilt or innocence at a murder trial, its merely an appeal to the prejudices of anyone who divides women into madonnas and - a classic misogynistic mindset.

What I said is that, in my opinion, the lawyer for Meredith Kercher wants to delineate that Meredith was nothing like Knox. In order to demonstrate the difference, the obvious example comes from Knox's eagerness to have sex with strangers. Knox does not have the same moral character as Meredith.

I'm sure that Knox's lawyers will attempt to portray her, once again, as an Amelie Bambi. Meredith's lawyer is making sure that such a portrayal includes Amelie Bambi that had sex with strangers on the train (suddenly Dr Suess comes to mind ... Green Eggs and Ham).

 

[TorisMom003]

What I said is that, in my opinion, the lawyer for Meredith Kercher wants to delineate that Meredith was nothing like Knox. In order to demonstrate the difference, the obvious example comes from Knox's eagerness to have sex with strangers. Knox does not have the same moral character as Meredith.

I'm sure that Knox's lawyers will attempt to portray her, once again, as an Amelie Bambi. Meredith's lawyer is making sure that such a portrayal includes Amelie Bambi that had sex with strangers on the train (suddenly Dr Suess comes to mind ... Green Eggs and Ham).

That is a slippery road that the lawyer is wanting to lead folks down. Meredith and Amanda were alike in some aspects. Now should Amanda's lawyers remind the court how they were alike? And if Amanda's lawyers do that for the courts benefit will those against Amanda claim that it is smearing the victim's name and memory?

 

[redheadedgal]

Uncalled for! They are the victims family here.

from the rules and etiquette thread:

Victim Friendly

Websleuths is a victim friendly forum. Attacking or bashing a victim is not allowed. Discussing victim behavior, good or bad is fine, but do so in a civl and constructive way and ONLY IF IT IS RELEVANT TO THE CASE. Additionally, sleuthing family members that are not suspect is not allowed. Don't make random accusations or post personal information (even if it is public) like parking tickets, address, or first and last names of all their relatives and their neighbors. Also, never "bash" or attack them, or accuse them of involvement. However that does not mean that family members cannot come into discussion as the facts and issues of the case are discussed.


the post that is being called out in no way fails to meet these criteria imo.

 

[Amber29]

This is the quote from Maresca

"She has a personal website where she invites people to collect donations in the memory of the victim, Meredith Kercher, which is an unbearable contradiction for the family,' Maresca said.

Then the article goes on 2 paragraphs down without quotes saying:

Knox is soliciting donations on her website for her defense as well as a separate, as yet-unspecified project in Miss Kercher's memory.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...or-demands-Amanda-Knoxs-convicted-murder.html

Now can someone who calls the lawyer a liar please link his quote where he says what the other paragraph asserts.

 

[aa9511]

Yes, let's make more assumptions about Amanda and her character. After all it isn't as if she has had anything serious claimed about her that she has to constantly defend, like say murdering someone.

The point is that this was a claim made in court, a claim that was looked into and proven false. One can believe it if they wish or not. One can look for evidence themselves or not. I simply looked and saw that it was false.

That was my whole point, it wasn't proven false. We don't know what Amanda did or did not do. We don't know what Marcesa meant because he unfortunately didn't provide any back-up, and so we don't know either way.

 

[Cappuccino]

What I said is that, in my opinion, the lawyer for Meredith Kercher wants to delineate that Meredith was nothing like Knox. In order to demonstrate the difference, the obvious example comes from Knox's eagerness to have sex with strangers. Knox does not have the same moral character as Meredith.

I'm sure that Knox's lawyers will attempt to portray her, once again, as an Amelie Bambi. Meredith's lawyer is making sure that such a portrayal includes Amelie Bambi that had sex with strangers on the train (suddenly Dr Suess comes to mind ... Green Eggs and Ham).

It has no relevance whether Amanda and Meredith were as alike as two peas, or chalk and cheese. Her lawyer, as you are tacitly admitting, is playing madonnas and for the purpose of prejudicing anyone who shares his misogynist view of women against the defendant. And furthermore, he is doing it in a very disingenuous way by describing this supposedly immoral behaviour as "extreme sex" which suggests that Amanda's sex life involved something sadistic, or something else which would predispose her to collude in a rape and murder. Amanda's sexual history shows no such experiences, so that is almost another bare faced lie from the Kercher's financially motivated lawyer.

 

[Amber29]

from the rules and etiquette thread:

Victim Friendly

Websleuths is a victim friendly forum. Attacking or bashing a victim is not allowed. Discussing victim behavior, good or bad is fine, but do so in a civl and constructive way and ONLY IF IT IS RELEVANT TO THE CASE. Additionally, sleuthing family members that are not suspect is not allowed. Don't make random accusations or post personal information (even if it is public) like parking tickets, address, or first and last names of all their relatives and their neighbors. Also, never "bash" or attack them, or accuse them of involvement. However that does not mean that family members cannot come into discussion as the facts and issues of the case are discussed.


the post that is being called out in no way fails to meet these criteria imo.

I disagree I think asserting that they could've acted with more dignity is an insult.

It's easy for someone not in their shoes to pass judgement on how they've handled the trial. Their daughter/sibling was brutally murdered.IMO they can act however they want.

 

[aa9511]

BBM - I agree with all - and people should understand and know that it is indeed possible to be accepting of some/most/all of the guilt evidence without being "out to get Amanda" or "on a witch hunt" or "filled with hate". (I more or less feel sorry for her whether I view her as innocent or guilty.)

That's interesting, if she is guilty you still feel sorry for her? Do you feel sorry for all killers (they must pretty much all have some type of dysfunctional past/personality disorder, or family dysfunction, mental problems, and etc., etc.), or is it just Amanda?

 

[TorisMom003]

That was my whole point, it wasn't proven false. We don't know what Amanda did or did not do. We don't know what Marcesa meant because he unfortunately didn't provide any back-up, and so we don't know either way.

And yet several used that point of his to claim that Amanda was some horrible person for doing what she was accused of doing. So why is it ok to jump on the Amanda is a horrible person bandwagon without any proof? I suppose that since she has been accused of a crime that she claims she is innocent of that she is fair game? That simply being accused is enough for some?

 

[Katody]

This is the quote from Maresca

"She has a personal website where she invites people to collect donations in the memory of the victim, Meredith Kercher, which is an unbearable contradiction for the family,' Maresca said.

Then the article goes on 2 paragraphs down without quotes saying:

Knox is soliciting donations on her website for her defense as well as a separate, as yet-unspecified project in Miss Kercher's memory.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...or-demands-Amanda-Knoxs-convicted-murder.html

Now can someone who calls the lawyer a liar please link his quote where he says what the other paragraph asserts.

What for? The first quote is a blatant lie.

 

[aa9511]

Requesting a link for something that has been provided over and over is tiresome. Perhaps moving onto something else would be better for the flow of conversation. If one has read, and responded to, the quotes where the link is provided then one should not need the link to be posted yet again especially when one posted the original quote to begin with.

I have seen repeatedly and repeatedly on this thread, people asking Otto to post links when he has already done so upthread or many times previously.

Double standard, then. Because then Otto shouldn't be asked to link to every minute thing he says.

 

[redheadedgal]

I was on her website last night and as I look now there are definite changes.

as i too was on her site last night, please describe the "changes" you see...

 

[Amber29]

What for? The first quote is a blatant lie.

No it's not. He is talking about the link to the Meredith Kercher fund.

Clearly the Kerchers do not like AK linking to it.