Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #10

[SMK]

Not a confession. After two hours, she gave a declaration that she was at the cottage at the time of the murder. She said that she was really scared of Patrick, that Patrick murderer Meredith.

Why not just say Rudy did it? they suggested Patrick because they were obsessed with the text message saying "see you later"

 

[SMK]

. . . youth is listed as a factor that makes one susceptable to false confession. Amanda's interrogation was not taped, and she claims she was hit. She also was told a lawyer would "make things worse for her" and that if she was covering for someone, she would go away for 30 years and never see her family again. She quickly recanted her "visions" and said they were like a dream and not reliable. Further: the police lied and said they had proof she was there, and that Raffaele had turned on her.
There is at least one aspect to police lying that is deeply troubling and is by no means a matter of moral taste. Lying and deception set up circumstances under which an innocent person can be coerced into falsely confessing. The risk of miscarriages of justice that police lying creates could be reduced to near zero if certain procedural changes were made. Interrogations need to be entirely recorded and the law enforcement standard for what is considered an acceptable confession needs to be rethought and set at a level that requires that the substance of a subject’s confession corroborates his admission.http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/35986cc45c6af2b4052573ed0056ff9f?OpenDocument

 

[flourish]

Is that what it says, ninny???????????:razz:

Uh, what exactly does this mean? "ninny???" and then the angry faces and tongue sticking out....it's really reminding me of my preschoolers and their "nanny nanny boo boo, I don't like you" chant, complete with tongue sticking out....is there perhaps a more clear, mature way to state your point here? (Or do you need to go to the "calm down" area until you're ready to use your big-kid words?)

To be clear, I'm semi-serious, and semi-giving you a hard time b/c you've introduced me to some new and different words...okie...ninny... :giggle:

I just don't understand posts which consist only of or :razz:

 

[SMK]

Uh, what exactly does this mean? "ninny???" and then the angry faces and tongue sticking out....it's really reminding me of my preschoolers and their "nanny nanny boo boo, I don't like you" chant, complete with tongue sticking out....is there perhaps a more clear, mature way to state your point here? (Or do you need to go to the "calm down" area until you're ready to use your big-kid words?)

To be clear, I'm semi-serious, and semi-giving you a hard time b/c you've introduced me to some new and different words...okie...ninny... :giggle:

I just don't understand posts which consist only of or :razz:

It's just my playful way. I like to communicate like this. Ever notice I only do it to Otto, and no one else??? I was never considered an immature thinker: I was a member of Phi Beta Epsilon society and I majored in philosophy, and I presented papers on Nichomachean ethics and Aristotlean metaphysics and politics. My honor's thesis was on Nietzsche's Geneology of Morals. I am a press agent for many well known lawyers and media persons. Unless someone wants to ban me, I like sticking out my tongue at Otto. I assumed he could take it. Why, pray, are there icons with the tongue sticking out if we are not allowed to use them???:razzjust half-kidding, BTW):innocent: & truly thank you for your feedback:blowkiss:

 

[wasnt_me]

She is half deaf? And they find out after 3 years? Amazing. She heard what she heard, and she wasn't the only witness that heard something. Who said MK's shutters were closed anyway?

The pictures of the crime scene show her windows are closed until FR altered that, too while she was so innocently altering the crime scene. That witness heard something, alright, and said that night she heard it was Halloween.

I don't understand. You can think AK and RS are guilty without having to believe what extemperaneous, so-called witnesses have said. Some of them have just "come forward" to get media attention. You should be able to discern which ones to believe and not believe without being in danger of losing your hope that they're guilty.

 

[wasnt_me]

And ... she seems to have no difficulty having a normal volume conversation ... doesn't seem the least bit deaf.

Believe what you want to believe. If you believe she heard that and heard running right after that, then she didn't hear MK, because MK was being attacked and sexually assaulted. A scream and running right away means she got stabbed and then the people ran off.

 

[wasnt_me]

I spent a couple of summers studying in Italy. They're hot headed people ... not quite as hot headed as the Spaniards, but hot headed compared to Northern Europeans. It's normal for them to be passionate, emotional and even sometimes raise their voices. That's part of the culture.

So much is made of Italian police raising their voices while coercing information out of a witness that they know is a liar (Knox) ... as though they're doing something wrong. I kind of think that's to be expected, since police coerce information out of reluctant witnesses, and Italians sometimes raise their voices. What I'm saying is that people seem to object to police doing their jobs in Italy when it results in the arrest of Knox.

But I guess it doesn't matter that AK is not from that culture and is not used to that kind of treatment? an Italian's idea of "passionate" might be an American's idea of mean, intimidating, and ominious. Just saying. And if the "average" italian is "passionate," I can't imagine what one who is trying to coerce a statement out of you is like.

Nothing again Italians, just saying.

 

[wasnt_me]

You're right that little in the statement coincides with what was later learned from his father and from computer records. Again, we have a statement aimed at getting away from aggressive interrogation rather than truth telling.

My guess is RS was told that AK had recanted her alibi of him or that ILE had iron-clad proof that she was at her own apartment during the hours of 9 to 1. Thus, RS thought it in his best interest to put her elsewhere during those hours.

But again it's a preposterous lie, because he doesn't even put AK back at his apartment until 1, yet we know she spoke to the friend who came by to say she didn't need a ride to the airport, and RS told his father that AK was there at the apartment during a phone call.

Classic coerced testimony.

He also said AK had flushed the crap in the toilet. We know it wasn't flushed, because the ILE had it anaylized. There's other stuff, too and I'll come back it later, because I feel RS has been sorely left out of the discussion for a long time--or mentioned as an afterthought to AK. She's really the one on trial and he's just dragged along for the ride.

 

[wasnt_me]

I am assuming , if reports of her being unliked at that point are true, that maybe she wanted to get kicked out and live with Raffaele. Maybe she viewed it as a prank, but did not think it would turn violent.

I'm not following that. Are you saying she would do that because she didn't want RS to KNOW that she was trying to get kicked out?

Because my short reply that your theory is why not just move out? He sounds from reports like the kind of BF who'd love to coddle her and take her. But you're saying she wanted to make him feel sorry for her because she got kicked out? Or make him think her house was unsafe, so he'd insist on it?

I'm not feeling those theories. But I see your reasoning.

 

[SMK]

I'm not following that. Are you saying she would do that because she didn't want RS to KNOW that she was trying to get kicked out?

Because my short reply that your theory is why not just move out? He sounds from reports like the kind of BF who'd love to coddle her and take her. But you're saying she wanted to make him feel sorry for her because she got kicked out? Or make him think her house was unsafe, so he'd insist on it?

I'm not feeling those theories. But I see your reasoning.

Now that I think of it, it does not make much sense. Perhaps I meant that she knew she was moving in with Raff, and was leaving on a spiteful note (but never intended to leave on a murderous note)?:waitasec:

 

[wasnt_me]

I was trying to point out police holding a theory and being unable to let go of it when the facts do not add up, of course.

It seems that people who think AK is guilty do not believe in police brutality, police, violent interrogations, etc and they seem to think you can surely trust the government and agents of the government. Seems that they do not believe in corrupt officials, or officials who act in their own best interest instead of the interest of the public.

I don't know that you'll be able to convince them of it no matter how many factual cases you throw out about false confessions, coerced confessions, deplorable interrogation techniques etc. Or maybe they do believe in it, but refuse to believe it can happen to AK, because she is of course the "foxy knoxy" who seduces men into her web of lies and murder and even seduced the devil hunting prosecutor who writes of his dreams about her.

This prosecuter is definitely acting in his citizens' interest and not his own and AK is an evil little girl, who wanted MK to have sex with RG or die. to get out of it, she blames anyone she can. from the police all the way to her boss. It's that simple. for them anyway.

 

[claudicici]

yes,I think the focus is way too much on AK.There's so little discussion about RS and RG for that matter.I like to read the three diaries each one of them wrote in prison .I think they are very telling and yes,point to RG as being guilty even though what he writes is most passionate but it reveals that he has a very troubled soul,I aso remember a video on his myspace or some other social network but I can't find it anymore where he says "I'm a vampire,I'm dracula,I want to suck your blood" which in hindsight is really haunting...there's so little about RS,he almost became AK's invisible shadow.His diary reveals a lot more compassion for MK than Amanda's as well and I appreciate how he repents his superficiality and actually uses being in prison as a learning experience.

 

[SMK]

It seems that people who think AK is guilty do not believe in police brutality, police, violent interrogations, etc and they seem to think you can surely trust the government and agents of the government. Seems that they do not believe in corrupt officials, or officials who act in their own best interest instead of the interest of the public.

I don't know that you'll be able to convince them of it no matter how many factual cases you throw out about false confessions, coerced confessions, deplorable interrogation techniques etc. Or maybe they do believe in it, but refuse to believe it can happen to AK, because she is of course the "foxy knoxy" who seduces men into her web of lies and murder and even seduced the devil hunting prosecutor who writes of his dreams about her.

This prosecuter is definitely acting in his citizens' interest and not his own and AK is an evil little girl, who wanted MK to have sex with RG or die. to get out of it, she blames anyone she can. from the police all the way to her boss. It's that simple. for them anyway.

Amen to that, sister!:innocent:

 

[wasnt_me]

My theory: well, RS or AK must have gotten up in the middle of the night or at 745am to tip off the press that a murder was about to occur. That's where they were--in the press room getting interviewed for their 15 minutes of fame about the morning story about to break.(wasnt_me)----but why on earth would they do this, if they wanted Filomena to be the one to discover? and wouldn't this put the suspicion right on them? or were you joking????
'

Yes, Joking.

I was asking everyone why that half-deaf lady said she saw the murder in the paper at 11am ON THE DAY OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE BODY. When the body hadn't been discovered until 1pm, right?

And the above was my answer as to why she'd see a headline of a murder that hadn't even been discovered.

Either that, or she AGAIN got her days wrong, making her uncredible.

Here, again this is what the half-deaf lady reported happening on Nov 2. (also note that the "boys come running." seems everyone runs according to her.)

According to the suspects’ lawyers, the clamor of the area, just around the corner from this women’s flat, could have frightened and influenced this witness. Her account does show some contradictions. There’s what she says about the morning of November 2, the night after she heard the scream.

“That morning, while I was cleaning the house, I heard the boys come running. Signora, Signora, they have killed a girl in that cottage. (&#8230 Then I went out to get some bread.”

Response: “It was 11 a.m. and I stopped off at the newsstand and there already headlines like this, that spoke of this girl.”

It is an incovertible fact that the corpse of Meredith was discovered at 1:30 p.m. on November 2. Therefore, at 11 a.m. no one knew of the death; much less, that morning was it possible for the local newspapers to speak of the homicide.

My theory as to why she saw this headline at 11am before the door had even been broken down to MK's room: well, RS or AK must have gotten up in the middle of the night or at 745am to tip off the press that a murder was about to occur. That's where they were--in the press room getting interviewed for their 15 minutes of fame about the morning story about to break

 

[claudicici]

Now that I think of it, it does not make much sense. Perhaps I meant that she knew she was moving in with Raff, and was leaving on a spiteful note (but never intended to leave on a murderous note)?:waitasec:

I always get the feeling that AK really had no clue that MK had a problem with her.MK was to polite to bring it up and AK is not fine tuned into what others are feeling IMO so as far as motive goes I think it would have been far more conceivable that MK would have wanted AK out than AK even realizing there was a problem?

 

[wasnt_me]

Eehh .. I am not sure how to answer that Some questions I can understand but others go a little far. I don't believe there is one single piece of evidence or even a witness that is accepted by the innocence side. Everyone is being coerced, or part of the evil Mignini conspiracy. It just goes way too far. The starting point is 'they must be innocent and therefore all the evidence must be false'. It is much easier to follow the evidence, accept the verdicts and then you can still be critical of the investigation. JMO.

Guilters, by the same token will not accept ONE piece of reasonable doubt. So it swings both ways.

 

[wasnt_me]

Why did they originally say 9:30-10:30?

Again, I believe she was dead by the time someone called her bank. Or at least dying on the floor.

 

[SMK]

Yes, Joking.

I was asking everyone why that half-deaf lady said she saw the murder in the paper at 11am ON THE DAY OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE BODY. When the body hadn't been discovered until 1pm, right?

And the above was my answer as to why she'd see a headline of a murder that hadn't even been discovered.

Either that, or she AGAIN got her days wrong, making her uncredible.

Here, again this is what the half-deaf lady reported happening on Nov 2. (also note that the "boys come running." seems everyone runs according to her.)

According to the suspects’ lawyers, the clamor of the area, just around the corner from this women’s flat, could have frightened and influenced this witness. Her account does show some contradictions. There’s what she says about the morning of November 2, the night after she heard the scream.

“That morning, while I was cleaning the house, I heard the boys come running. Signora, Signora, they have killed a girl in that cottage. (…) Then I went out to get some bread.”

Response: “It was 11 a.m. and I stopped off at the newsstand and there already headlines like this, that spoke of this girl.”

It is an incovertible fact that the corpse of Meredith was discovered at 1:30 p.m. on November 2. Therefore, at 11 a.m. no one knew of the death; much less, that morning was it possible for the local newspapers to speak of the homicide.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[sherlockh]

I haven't really followed RG's case, so I have no opinion on his various tales.

But coerced testimony is not uncommon, despite what you and otto would like to believe.

In his statement RS places himself with AK in the town square until 9 pm, but we KNOW they were at his apartment when the friend stopped by and spoke with AK, when RS' father called, when they started (at least) the movie, etc.

RS' lies not only don't correspond with the known facts, they don't even help him personally. They are merely attempts to say whatever will get him out of the room.

I agree that coercions happen and any coercion is one too many, but to imply that they are common I don't agree with. Percentage wise it is a rare occurrence. Same with LE lying and covering up for each other. It happens and it shouldn't happen but fortunately it is rare. For some reason, in this case coerced statements, and LE lying under oath are all seen as totally normal.

 

[wasnt_me]

well, there was a LOT more dna and evidence of Guede than the other 2, that is why he is not generally included....

This really IS true. It's not equal at all.