Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #12

[Malkmus]

The prison short story was also published online, so anyone that read Amanda's Baby Brother story had no difficulty recognizing the convoluted writing style.

Like I said, guessing that it's hers.

 

[otto]

As stated before Mignini has a pattern of bringing lawsuits I could compare it much to a serial killer that picks there next victim although I don't believe him to be a serial killer I am simply using an analogy

So where is the list of the lies that Prosecutor Mignini told?

The people that have been involved with lawsuits as a result of the murder of Meredith Kercher: Patrick, Rudy, Frank, Prosecutor Mignini, Curt Knox, Edda Mellas, Kercher family, Raffaele, Dr Sollecito, police, Amanda, Tacopina, Lifetime Movies ... did I miss anyone? There is a lawsuit pattern in connection with the murder of Meredith Kercher, but there is not a pattern with any particular party to the lawsuit.

 

[Malkmus]

Do you have a link to the official lawsuit? I looked on the linked page, but couldn't find it. What I saw on that blog was exactly what dgfred described.

The article has Mignini's court order as well as the offending blog post attached to it. The entire blog post Mignini is suing over is in the article. What isn't clear to you? Please read the blog post and tell us what is so illegal about it.
And dgfred didn't describe anything. He simply vented about how I side with Sfarzo instead of Mignini but didn't explain why Mignini is in the right here or why he sides with him.

 

[otto]

How, pray, can one determine if a 20 year old girl has or has not a "soul"??? In the case of Karla, yes, it seemed a whole realm was simply missing from the girl. But that was after she had dully partaken in the killing of her own sister and other girls, and disposing of bodies. Knox has displayed no such gaping hole. She seems to have as much of a "soul" as anyone. :waitasec:

Those were Patrick's words. I suppose he must have had a devastating experience with the 20 year old woman.

 

[Malkmus]

Those were Patrick's words. I suppose he must have had a devastating experience with the 20 year old woman.

Obviously he didn't think that until he was put in jail based on her statement. Or do you really think he had the opinion that she has no soul for the weeks prior to the murder?

 

[SMK]

Obviously he didn't think that until he was put in jail based on her statement. Or do you really think he had the opinion that she has no soul for the weeks prior to the murder?

This is an interesting question: Does Otto believe Patrick immediately, upon meeting Knox, knew she had no soul? Or was it the being arrested, beaten, and being detained for weeks - the fault of the police for not promptly checking out his alibi - which made him declare this? Also, what nationality is Lumumba? In the Lifetime movie, he spoke like a Haitian or a Jamacian or a Dominican. Isn't it part of their culture, to speak of "a dead soul", "stealing one's soul"? Can you imagine someone from Knox's hometown saying she was "dead inside, with no soul"?:waitasec:

 

[wasnt_me]

I'm reading The Monster of Puriga, the Framing of Amanda Knox.

Anyone else read this?

I have to say, he rambles, he loves his own analogies and to hear himself talk. However, he does bring up a few nuggets to ponder in between. I'm not a fan of books written like persuasive research papers, but I gotta get through it, since I bought it.

It's hard to tell the page numbers in Kindle on my phone, but it says I'm on page 74 on the computer. This is where he talks about the crime scene investigation. He talks about watching the uncut version of the evidence collection.

Here are observations he makes:

1. Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, later testified in court that she only changed her gloves after handling something that was “particularly soaked in blood.”​

2. He writes of seeing investigators going through the wastebasket with gloves on. The wastebasket was breaming with old, dirty gloves that had been used in other parts of the house.​

3. During the first inspection, investigators had rearranged clothes, household items, and furniture while collecting evidence. Piles of it lay on the floors and other areas of the cottage. The crime scene had been altered at that point, but the investigators returned to collect more evidence as if the crime scene was fresh. They did not do control tests to combat cross contamination from the rearranged items.​

4. Investigators used the same swabs to swab different locations. We saw this in a video I posted earlier. Additionally, the author said he saw someone drop a swab, pick it up and continue to swab.​

It is as if he observes a “three second rule” for swabs. In other cases, the investigator decided that stains were associated, and so used one swab to collect them all. The so-called, “mixed blood” or “mixed DNA” spots in the bathroom Meredith and Amanda shared were collected at this time.

Waterbury, Mark (2011). The Monster of Perugia - The Framing of Amanda Knox (p. 74). Perception Development. Kindle Edition.

The book is slanted and opinionated, but I found these observances interesting, considering that the bra clasp was an afterthought, only collected in a big to-do that was steamed live on the internet. How convenient to rediscover the clasp on this day when the cameras are rolling, and then brilliantly store the only "evidence" against RS in liquid, thereby destroying it before the defense can have the benefit of a retest.

 

[otto]

Otto, my man, where have we gone wrong with ye? The evidence just is not there, my dear, in this case. Just tis not there. fftobed: ETA: Yes, the high court which ruled Rudy could not have acted alone gives me stern pause. Why did he conclude as he did, when many intelligent people who have studied all the evidence in depth, including the defense expert witness, say he most likely did act alone???

I could say that the evidence with the conviction of Brad Cooper isn't there so it was probably a false conviction, but I'm willing to admit that I missed some of the trial, and certain portions were blacked out. Therefore, I'm willing to accept that although I feel strongly that the evidence was not there, I do not have all the information that the jury had. With Knox, it should be obvious to everyone that we do not have access to the 11 months of trial testimony. Today we have access to the Judge's summary and that information that pro-innocenti are propagandizing (that's probably not a word). The case for guilt has been made. The case of not guilty is being made based on selective information that as a totality doesn't work.

I think a number of factors were considered when condemning Rudy, including the staged break in and the injuries, or lack thereof. Those points (and probably more) suggested that Rudy did not act alone.

 

[otto]

Preston's intelligence and writing is of a very high order. Really first-rate caliber.

I'm surprised you didn't mention the book description of his meeting with Prosecutor Mignini ... or did you not find the 2 and 3 hours questioning odd?

 

[otto]

Like I said, guessing that it's hers.

So it's possible that there are 11 Italian prisoners learning Italian and writng about about abandoning a dying woman?

 

[wasnt_me]

I could say that the evidence with the conviction of Brad Cooper isn't there so it was probably a false conviction, but I'm willing to admit that I missed some of the trial, and certain portions were blacked out. Therefore, I'm willing to accept that although I feel strongly that the evidence was not there, I do not have all the information that the jury had. With Knox, it should be obvious to everyone that we do not have access to the 11 months of trial testimony. Today we have access to the Judge's summary and that information that pro-innocenti are propagandizing (that's probably not a word). The case for guilt has been made. The case of not guilty is being made based on selective information that as a totality doesn't work.

I think a number of factors were considered when condemning Rudy, including the staged break in and the injuries, or lack thereof. Those points (and probably more) suggested that Rudy did not act alone.

So this summary of the trial is more reliable than you missing a little of the other case? to clarify, you watched this trial yourself. The summary report has been translated by people who were not court appointed. Unless I am wrong that someone at PMF translated it. So I can't see how that's more reliable than what you saw yourself, even if you missed some of it.

So no one can question the case for guilt that was made?

How exactly are the cases for innocence selective and why do they not work?

If you cannot state why, then we have no reason to take your opinion under advisement.

 

[otto]

The article has Mignini's court order as well as the offending blog post attached to it. The entire blog post Mignini is suing over is in the article. What isn't clear to you? Please read the blog post and tell us what is so illegal about it.
And dgfred didn't describe anything. He simply vented about how I side with Sfarzo instead of Mignini but didn't explain why Mignini is in the right here or why he sides with him.

I couldn't find the actual lawsuit. I like to see things with my own eyes, but I couldn't find it ... you know ... the stamps and signatures showing the pdf file of the document? It's a long blog entry ... whereabouts is the link?

Are you wondering why a prosecutor is right at the end of a trial? Let me count the ways. The jury makes the decision whether the accused is guilty, so it really doesn't have anything to do with the prosecutor ... unless you want to hold people like NC prosecutors Boz and Coomings responsible for the fact that Cupper was found guilty. The prosecutors, Comodi and co-counsel, made the better argument even though defense was permitted to attack evidence as it was presented. Is it their fault that all those defense lawyers were unable to successfully convince a jury that their clients were innocent?

 

[otto]

Obviously he didn't think that until he was put in jail based on her statement. Or do you really think he had the opinion that she has no soul for the weeks prior to the murder?

Does that matter? Are you suggesting that if I meet someone on Monday and they steal from me on Tuesday, that my Monday impression is more significant than my Tuesday impression?

I think not.

 

[otto]

So this summary of the trial is more reliable than you missing a little of the other case?

So no one can question the case for guilt that was made?

How exactly are the cases for innocence selective and why do they not work?

If you cannot state why, then we have no reason to take your opinion under advisement.

Actually, no. The world is full of skeptics and conspiracy theorists. I could look at the Brad Cooper trial from the perspective of judicial irregulaties, or I could accept that the process tossed out a verdict different than what I believed. The Cooper verdict makes perfect sense to a lot of people, as do the Knox, Sollectio and Guede verdicts. There will always be those that don't agree with the verdict. Look at Scott Peterson ... same thing. People will argue for years that it was wrong and unfair and the murderer is actually the victim, but sometimes it just ain't so.

 

[wasnt_me]

As I said before, you based your opinion on AK according to what PL said, and it is not the totality of who she is.

Anyone stealing from you on Tuesday after meeting you on monday, well, in that case the opinion you develop of them IS STILL not the totality of who that person is.

 

[wasnt_me]

Actually, no. The world is full of skeptics and conspiracy theorists. I could look at the Brad Cooper from the perspective of judicial irregulaties, or I could accept that the process tossed out a verdict different than what I believed. The Cooper verdict makes perfect sense to a lot of people, as do the Knox, Sollectio and Guede verdicts. There will always be those that don't agree with the verdict. Look at Scott Peterson ... same thing. People will argue for years that it was wrong and unfair and the murderer is actually the victim, but sometimes it just ain't so.

You didn't answer my questions. If you don't, I hope you understand that I can't really put stock in the previous opinion you rendered.

In fact, you rarely answer any of my questions, and I really don't understand why you don't. You ask a lot of questions here and we try to answer them. It'd be nice if you'd return the courtesy.

 

[otto]

As I said before, you based your opinion on AK according to what PL said, and it is not the totality of who she is.

Anyone stealing from you on Tuesday after meeting you on monday, well, in that case the opinion you develop of them IS STILL not the totality of who that person is.

I disagree. If I trust that someone is a good person, and then they do something that proves me completely wrong - such as let me rot in prison for 2 weeks - I will assume that my earlier impression was a result of rose colored glasses. There is no way that Patrick will ever believe that Knox is anything more than lacking a soul, and nothing that happened prior to her devastating actions against him will cause him to doubt his opinion. Even Dempsey is sure of that.

 

[otto]

You didn't answer my questions. If you don't, I hope you understand that I can't really put stock in the previous opinion you rendered.

In fact, you rarely answer any of my questions, and I really don't understand why you don't. You ask a lot of questions here and we try to answer them. It'd be nice if you'd return the courtesy.

What question did I miss?

 

[wasnt_me]

Go back and read the post and you'll see all the questions.

 

[wasnt_me]

Another interesting theory from that book I'm reading, that I mentioned above.

I guess it's his theory that the police told AK that she had HIV to get her to list her partners, because they'd wanted to trick her into listing RG, but she didn't, of course.

I'd never even given that any kind of consideration, though I'd certainly wondered why they'd tell her something like that and return to say "never mind."