Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #12

[SMK]

Always impressed with the clarity of Nova's writing!

Steve Moore said it:
"He also slammed Italian authorities for their initial interrogation of Knox, which he likened to tactics used by "third-world intelligence agencies."
http://abcnews.go.com/International...tired-fbi-agent-steve-moore/story?id=11541334

Me, too, Steve. Nova must have been powerful as a professor; he has a robust mind of a very high order.

 

[otto]

Dempsey isn't all you've read.

Lumumba's nonsense is understandable given the trouble AK caused him, but there is no reason to believe it. It doesn't even make sense.

Rather like your own description of AK as dull, but violent and perverse. One imagines you huddled over your thesaurus, simply making a list of random, negative adjectives.

Lumumba's nonsense? What do you mean? Surely you're not suggesting that Patrick is deserving of scorn because he has a normal reaction to having his livlihood destroyed by a woman from Seattle.

Dull people like Knox can be murderers, but that is not enough to make them interesting. However, I'm sure that some people find murderers interesting simply because they have an ugly mind.

 

[SMK]

Lumumba's nonsense? What do you mean? Surely you're not suggesting that Patrick is deserving of scorn because he has a normal reaction to having his livlihood destroyed by a woman from Seattle.

Dull people like Knox can be murderers, but that is not enough to make them interesting. However, I'm sure that some people find murderers interesting simply because they have an ugly mind.

I cannot speak for Nova, but I think Lumumba uttered nonsense when he said "she is dead inside, without a soul". To me, sounded like a voodoo tribal man speaking. Of course he is justified at being angry for the ordeal he went through, but he has come to his senses and blames police now more than Knox. He might have spoken better by saying, "To accuse me was inexcusable. I do not forgive her" rather than the other nonsense.

 

[otto]

I cannot speak for Nova, but I think Lumumba uttered nonsense when he said "she is dead inside, without a soul". To me, sounded like a voodoo tribal man speaking. Of course he is justified at being angry for the ordeal he went through, but he has come to his senses and blames police now more than Knox. He might have spoken better by saying, "To accuse me was inexcusable. I do not forgive her" rather than the other nonsense.

Where did you read that Patrick holds police responsible for what happened to him?

 

[SMK]

Where did you read that Patrick holds police responsible for what happened to him?

Because he is attempting to sue them?

 

[SMK]

Originally Posted by otto
Where did you read that Patrick holds police responsible for what happened to him?

Lumumba was arrested the next day, but was quickly able to prove he'd spent the evening in his bar, and was released on November 20, 2007, for lack of any evidence corroborating Knox's account. He later sued the police for 516,000 euros in damage for false imprisonment (approximately $670,000 at the time). On March 16, 2009, an Italian court awarded Patrick 8,000 euros ($10,500).http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/young/amanda_knox/4.html

 

[otto]

Because he is attempting to sue them?

I don't think a conclusion can be drawn about who Patrick holds responsible based on lawsuits.

"Amanda Knox, the American student on trial for murdering her British flat mate Meredith Kercher, is being sued for nearly half a million pounds by a man she wrongly accused of the crime."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...7793/Amanda-Knox-sued-by-Patrick-Lumumba.html

 

[Nova]

Amanda is in the best place to get help. The rehabilitation opportunities in Italian prisons will help her tremendously. We've already seen a change in her. She no longer treats Meredith's murder trial as a joke - big improvement! She is encouraged to find God, to write, dance, study, work ... everything she needs to be rehabilitated so that she can function within the laws of society. I have faith in the system. The jury (not the two prosecutors) was able to conclude, after 11 months of trial (far different than what is done in the US), that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty. Rudy was found guilty by a judge alone, but that judge recognized that Rudy could not have acted alone. How can so many people that saw and heard the complete evidence be wrong? Isn't that what is generally assumed with trials in the US ... even though what we've heard implies not guilty, we blindly accept that what we didn't hear was compelling? Why not in this case as well? What we didn't hear must have been sufficient for the jury to conclude a guilty verdict.

In fact, no, we don't assume the jury is always correct in the U.S. That's why we have threads here discussing grave jury errors. That's why we have an extensive system of appeals. That's why we have a world-renowned Innocence Project.

And most important, that's why WE have guaranteed freedom of speech and the press, so that prosecutors and judges can't cover up their errors by suing everyone who dares to disagree.

(What we assume, BTW, is that a jury of one's peers is the fairest available judge of the evidence, which is why our juries don't include and aren't dominated by the judge of the same case. But that doesn't mean we think juries are infalliable.)

***

As for Amanda being "in the best place to get help," the help she needs most is protection from the corrupt Italian justice system and the antiquated and laughable forensics departments of ILE. So, no, Perugia is not the best place for her to be.

 

[otto]

In fact, no, we don't assume the jury is always correct in the U.S. That's why we have threads here discussing grave jury errors. That's why we have an extensive system of appeals. That's why we have a world-renowned Innocence Project.

And most important, that's why WE have guaranteed freedom of speech and the press, so that prosecutors and judges can't cover up their errors by suing everyone who dares to disagree.

(What we assume, BTW, is that a jury of one's peers is the fairest available judge of the evidence, which is why our juries don't include and aren't dominated by the judge of the same case. But that doesn't mean we think juries are infalliable.)

***

As for Amanda being "in the best place to get help," the help she needs most is protection from the corrupt Italian justice system and the antiquated and laughable forensics departments of ILE. So, no, Perugia is not the best place for her to be.

Wow! The whole Italian justice system is corrupt? Some blogger, and a bunch of other people like Tacopina, Lifetime movies, Dr Sollecito et al are involved in lawsuits related to the murder of Meredith Kercher, and only the prosecutor is accused of launching the lawsuit to cover up the truth? I would suggest that the lawsuits against Lifetime movies are for the purpose of covering up the truth, whereas the prosecutor is fed up with blogger slander.

 

[Nova]

I don't think so. Amanda Knox destroyed a man's life with her lies. She left him to rot in jail for two weeks knowing full well that he was innocent. Whatever Patrick feels for Amanda is genuine and a direct result of knowing the ugliest side of her.

That isn't true. AK (wrongly) implicated PL and within hours began to recant in the "gift statement" by saying her memory of PL's involvement felt "unreal" to her.

Any competent LE in the world would have seen that as a huge red flag.

It was ILE and Mignini--who can do no wrong in your book--who arrested PL without waiting for forensic results and left PL in prison for two weeks before confirming his alibi and releasing him.

OF COURSE, PL rails against AK. He knows he doesn't dare criticize ILE or Mignini or he will end up back behind bars.

 

[Nova]

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:

Oh, but she ducked out on work she was supposed to do for an uncle she didn't know very well. (Immature and wrong, I agree, but dead soul?) She kissed her boyfriend at the police station, and don't forget about the cartwheels: they are the key to the whole case!

 

[Nova]

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???

Political pressure. The sort of pressure applied in back rooms, so of course I can't prove it with a quotation, but I'm convinced at this point.

The other possibility is laziness.

 

[Nova]

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

What difference does it make!?

Assuming the story was written by AK, she stood accused of abandoning MK, so she wrote a story about a similar case. And this is surprising, how? And this is incriminating, how?

As with so much of the supposedly damning evidence against AK, upon closer inspection, this story (given the assumptions above) is actually exculpatory to AK.

If in fact she was with MK at the time of the crime and then abandoned MK, THAT WOULD BE THE LAST THING AK WOULD WRITE ABOUT--just for fear it might be used against her as yet another confession.

If AK wrote that story, it was only because it was so far from the truth, she had no fear in describing it on paper.

 

[Nova]

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?

Oh, of course the prosecutor is involved! In the first place, s/he decides whom to charge and what evidence to introduce and what to omit. In the AK/RS case alone, the prosecutor affected the outcome at least in part by withholding evidence from the defense.

And that only includes what goes on in public. We have no way to measure what happens behind the scenes in a system where the judge is also the foreperson of the jury.

 

[Nova]

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.

So you admit that PL's opinion of AK is based entirely on one action: her implication of him in the murder of MK.

Everyone here agrees that action by AK was wrong, though most of us at least understand that the statement was made under pressure and not through a calculated plot to frame PL for the murder.

THEREFORE, PL's opinion of AK is irrelevant because it is based on one fact, a fact already accepted by everyone here and so his opinion adds nothing to our knowledge of the case.

It's just something you like to throw in because you enjoy disparaging AK.

 

[SMK]

So you admit that PL's opinion of AK is based entirely on one action: her implication of him in the murder of MK.

Everyone here agrees that action by AK was wrong, though most of us at least understand that the statement was made under pressure and not through a calculated plot to frame PL for the murder.

THEREFORE, PL's opinion of AK is irrelevant because it is based on one fact, a fact already accepted by everyone here and so his opinion adds nothing to our knowledge of the case.

It's just something you like to throw in because you enjoy disparaging AK.

Bravo.

 

[Nova]

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."

On the subject of the HIV test, I want to add that I am a gay man of a certain age. I lived in NYC through the early early years of the AIDS epidemic (when there were more cases there even than in SF), when there was no government research and nobody had a clue as to the cause. I lived in New York and L.A. through the worst years of young men dying in droves, and I lost many friends and a brother. I remember well when tests were first developed and the many controversies that arose over testing and privacy.

I've been tested myself at least half-a-dozen times, not because I'm actually at risk (having been monogamous with the same partner since the mid-70s), but because if you're a gay man and go to a new doctor, the doctor can't rest until he gets that test. (I understand why: patients often lie to their doctors; so I say, "Sure, go ahead and test again.")

IN ALL THAT TIME, I've yet to encounter a single acquaintance who threw a false positive. This site puts the number of false positives at 15 per 1,000 tests and says those can be quickly solved with a second test.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_test



SO I AM HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS that AK somehow accidentally turned out to be one of the lucky 15. I believe:

1. ILE was just looking for more dirt to fuel the "Foxy Knoxy" story they were pushing in the press and that Mignini wanted for trial; or

2. As wasnt_me's link suggests, they were hoping AK would list RG as a former sex partner and they could use that list to solve the lack of apparent connection between RG and AK/RS. (Thanks for suggesting this, wasn't_me.)

EITHER WAY, I find the conduct of ILE disgusting. The fact that they then turned around leaked AK's list of sex partners to the press is, well... Words fail me.

 

[Nova]

You're right. She wasn't tricked into naming Rudy, and she wasn't even tricked into naming Raffaele. The guys she named were other guys. She did name the guy downstairs ... and others. Funny thing is that she went on and on with Patrick and her roommates about PJ or JP (the climbing guy in Japan) saying that she felt guilty about cheating on him with Raffaele, implying that she was in a relationship with him. She recently broke up with him so she was single ... with a lot of guys ... besides Raffaele. Weird that Knox told so many people that she was still seeing the guy from Seattle when they both accepted that their lives were going in different directions ... and were no longer seeing each other.

The prison doctor didn't tell her that she had HIV to get her to list her sexual partners. The doctor told her that tests came back positive, but that it was probably a false positive and not to worry. She went back to her room and tried to figure out how she got AIDS ... listed her partners and methods of contraception in her prison diary. Not surprisingly, the prison diary was confiscated.

She was told to make that list, which she should not have been told until a confirmation test was completed.

It may not be surprising that the diary was confiscated; it is most certainly inexcusable that it was released to the press.

 

[otto]

Oh, of course the prosecutor is involved! In the first place, s/he decides whom to charge and what evidence to introduce and what to omit. In the AK/RS case alone, the prosecutor affected the outcome at least in part by withholding evidence from the defense.

And that only includes what goes on in public. We have no way to measure what happens behind the scenes in a system where the judge is also the foreperson of the jury.

If the prosecutor is responsible for convictions, why would any legal system bother with judges and juries?

 

[otto]

She was told to make that list, which she should not have been told until a confirmation test was completed.

It may not be surprising that the diary was confiscated; it is most certainly inexcusable that it was released to the press.

I don't agree. Even Dempsey says in her book that Amanda took it upon herself to list her sex partners.