Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[SMK]

The first step for the child murderer is that he is going to have to acknowledge his victim, and he was unwilling to do that in court yesterday.

Well, how would it have seemed had he said, "Uh, yeah, that is the kid I bonked with a shovel"? He was speechless no doubt. After all, everyone KNEW he had killed a child. Did it need pointing out? He may have confessed in his heart before God, we do not know. But this has naught to do with Knox.

 

[otto]

I was not implying that you had misled me, Otto---just PMF forum and various articles. And yes, the prosecution may well want this circus, to show that only half-wits and killers believe Knox is innocent.

It doesn't really matter what anyone may have thought or may have wanted. The defense wanted this testimony to be heard - and made that request as part of the appeal process. They got their wish.

 

[otto]

Well, how would it have seemed had he said, "Uh, yeah, that is the kid I bonked with a shovel"? He was speechless no doubt. After all, everyone KNEW he had killed a child. Did it need pointing out? He may have confessed in his heart before God, we do not know. But this has naught to do with Knox.

It would be helpful if, when asked in court if he knew the child, he could have remembered and stated the child's name. According to him, he did not recognize the child. He is not prepared to acknowledge what he did, so any suggestions about testifying in court for atonement are unfounded. He's an evil person that murdered a child, but I suppose some people will view him as a victim, like Knox, if it helps to argue that Knox should be released back into society. Send in the Idaho gang so this kidnapper and child murderer can be released from prison to murder another child!

 

[SMK]

It would be helpful if, when asked in court if he knew the child, he could have remembered and stated the child's name. According to him, he did not recognize the child. He is not prepared to acknowledge what he did, so any suggestions about testifying in court for atonement are unfounded. He's an evil person that murdered a child, but I suppose some people will view him as a victim, like Knox, if it helps to argue that Knox should be released back into society. Send in the Idaho gang so this kidnapper and child murderer can be released from prison to murder another child!

They have no reason to believe Mario was wrongfully convicted, and you know it. :razz: (PS: Happy Father's Day)

 

[Nova]

Looks to me like someone is setting the groundwork for alleging that Hellman is corrupt, and to hold the Judge responsible for the prisoner circus. That is, if the appeal is not successful, then it can be suggested that the Judge deliberately shifted the focus from evidence to prisoner circus gossip in order to uphold the convictions. It should remain clear in everyone's minds that the defense chose to introduce the prisoner circus, not the prosecution and not the judge. Now that the prisoner circus has been introduced as evidence on behalf of the convicted pair, the Judge has to consider it ... and what better way than to see what Rudy has to say about the words that the prisoner circus have put in his mouth.

I suspect that next week Rudy will be in court. He will be asked if he told five conflicting stories to five prisoners. He might say no, in which case the prisoner circus can be dismissed. He might say yes, in which case the conflicting stories of the prisoner circus can be viewed as meaningless - since they are conflicting stories that do not match the evidence (eg: Meredith in a nightgown). He has already denied that he made the statements the prisoners have attributed to him.

It was a foolish decision to parade the prisoner circus through the courtroom in an attempt to put words in Rudy's mouth ... but perhaps there's a method to the madness that we have yet to see. Hopefully this isn't a brainchild of Mellas, although it does appear to be spawned by some misguided belief that a prisoner circus is a good source of information (talking heads on both sides of the pond seem to be rolling their eyes at this desperate move).

Re: "semen stain" - there is no semen stain. There are untested stains in the cottage, but sufficient evidence was collected to establish the guilt of all three convicted murderers.

Above is a classic example of caring more about being right than about seeing justice done.

The DT is condemned for creating a "circus," as if the defense should ignore potentially exonerating evidence because it doesn't come from a group of nuns.

And actually testing forensic evidence doesn't matter because the existing evidence is "sufficient" to give the poster the verdicts he wants.

 

[Nova]

We do know that lawyers act of behalf of their clients - clients make statements and decisions, lawyers present their client's position in the courts. We also know that Mellas thinks the prisoner circus testimony is "funny". Personally, I think he should be horrified, but he seems quite comfortable/amused with what is going on, so clearly he agrees.

You're just making up stuff out of whole cloth.

In the first place, as you know, "funny" in English can mean "amusing" or "peculiar." I don't know which Mellas meant, as either seems applicable.

In the second place, finding something "funny" does NOT mean one is "comfortable." That something strikes one as "ridiculous" does not mean one is taking treating the whole situation as less than serious.

 

[Nova]

I don't see anything funny about parading people like this through the courtroom in an attempt to point the finger in any direction other than at Knox and Sollecito. We have the lone wolf theory, the more than one assailant theft of a painting theory, the more than one assailant 3 way sex theory, confirmation of the Alessi theory (includes the victim in a nightgown) ... what next ... aliens?

Alessi: 51, serving life for beating an 18-month-old to death with a shovel, said Guede and the friend went to Meredith’s house after meeting her in a bar.

Luciano Aviello: The mobster said his brother Antonio stabbed Meredith in a botched robbery at the house she shared with Knox, 24, and two other women. He told the court Antonio had keys to the house and let himself in to steal a valuable painting – but was disturbed by “a woman in a dressing gown”.

Marco Castelluccio: Guede denies Alessi’s claims. The court also heard from armed robber Marco Castelluccio, who backed Alessi’s story.

link

It's been pointed out to you more than once that being a murderer isn't the same thing as being a liar.

And what is the defense supposed to do, ignore exculpatory witnesses because you don't like what they have to say?

Your argument that they are all lying just because their testimony contains errors has already been refuted, numerous times. Even you admit it by cherry-picking testimony you like from people you otherwise dismiss as "liars".

 

[otto]

Andrea Vogt on BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0070h86

See June 19 broadcast; Tune in at 12:57 minutes (interview lasts 6 minutes)

 

[otto]

You're just making up stuff out of whole cloth.

In the first place, as you know, "funny" in English can mean "amusing" or "peculiar." I don't know which Mellas meant, as either seems applicable.

In the second place, finding something "funny" does NOT mean one is "comfortable." That something strikes one as "ridiculous" does not mean one is taking treating the whole situation as less than serious.

But of course, Chris Mellas said "funny", but he meant something completely different.

 

[Nova]

Thanks for giving me a clearer perspective. Everyone has made it seem that this was a "defense circus" and a "disastrous step for the defense": No wonder I am confused! I now believe Judge Hellman may in fact be attempting to "dot his i s and cross his t s " so that his judgement will seem a carefully reasoned and just one. Someone quoted him as saying at the onset, "We know only that Meredith is dead". Clean slate. He did not even add, "and that Guede was there".

The defense HAD to ask the court to hear testimony that, on its face, is exculpatory to the defendants. That's the DT's job.

If the court chooses to disregard the testimony, AK and RS are no worse off.

 

[SkewedView]

Those Idaho guys don't seem to have enough guilty people to spring out of jail in Idaho, so maybe they should open a branch in Italy and spring some child murderers, mafia, armed robbers and the guy from the Ivory coast. He is claiming to be innocent of the murder charges too.

The fact that you would say this about The Innocence Project and its noble goals...

That's it, I'm back to lurking, otherwise I'm going to get myself banned.

 

[SMK]

You're just making up stuff out of whole cloth.

In the first place, as you know, "funny" in English can mean "amusing" or "peculiar." I don't know which Mellas meant, as either seems applicable.

In the second place, finding something "funny" does NOT mean one is "comfortable." That something strikes one as "ridiculous" does not mean one is taking treating the whole situation as less than serious.

I had wondered too if Mellas may have meant "odd" or "strange".

 

[otto]

It's been pointed out to you more than once that being a murderer isn't the same thing as being a liar.

And what is the defense supposed to do, ignore exculpatory witnesses because you don't like what they have to say?

Your argument that they are all lying just because their testimony contains errors has already been refuted, numerous times. Even you admit it by cherry-picking testimony you like from people you otherwise dismiss as "liars".

"sigh", "layman's terms", "not reading the post" and "it's been pointed out to you more than once" ... these are unnecessary condescending terms and phrases, are they not?

By all means, feel free to believe the testimony from lying, murderous prisoners that are spending the rest of their days behind bars. Tell me again that they are not really bad people just because they lied, robbed and murdered ... and when I refuse to adopt your opinion, you can tell me again that "It's been pointed out to you more than once" that being criminals doesn't mean they are liars. Perhaps these criminals did tell the truth when they were arrested ... because they might be honest murderers and criminals.

 

[Nova]

It's a prisoner circus that amuses Chris Mellas, and the defense has asked that the prisoner fantasies be entertained by the court. We can split hairs in an effort to distance the murderers from the prisoner circus, but no one other that the defense wants this testimony to be taken seriously.

Isn't there a fan fiction site where this sort of post would be more suitable?

You've now expanded a quote from Mellas about one prior witness and misapplied it to the convicts who testified yesterday. You've decreed that everything a murderer says is automatically a lie (based on no evidence whatsoever). You've insisted for at least the third time that the defense attorneys are to be condemned for not checking with you before they ask that exculpatory witnesses be allowed to take the stand.

That isn't hairsplitting, that is just invention.

 

[Nova]

The homeless prosecution witness looks like a saint in comparison to the prisoner circus defense witnesses.

And again, you don't seem to understand that the point with witnesses is veracity, not saintliness.

 

[otto]

I had wondered too if Mellas may have meant "odd" or "strange".

"Bizarre" - a quick click on the link I provided would have cleared that up.

 

[SMK]

The fact that you would say this about The Innocence Project and its noble goals...

That's it, I'm back to lurking, otherwise I'm going to get myself banned.

I always find it effective, and a way of keeping myself from ranting at length, to use this: :razz:

 

[SMK]

"Bizarre" - a quick click on the link I provided would have cleared that up.

Where is that link? I am going to it now, I DID NOT RECOGNIZE IT AS A LINK as you parsed it!

 

[Nova]

The first step for the child murderer is that he is going to have to acknowledge his victim, and he was unwilling to do that in court yesterday.

Maybe he really didn't recognize his victim. He had the baby for 20 minutes, during which time he was riding a motorcycle and attempting to evade police. He killed the child out of panic, so it isn't such a stretch to believe he doesn't have the clearest memory of those 20 minutes.

Or maybe he was just ashamed and didn't want to talk about killing a baby.

 

[otto]

Isn't there a fan fiction site where this sort of post would be more suitable?

You've now expanded a quote from Mellas about one prior witness and misapplied it to the convicts who testified yesterday. You've decreed that everything a murderer says is automatically a lie (based on no evidence whatsoever). You've insisted for at least the third time that the defense attorneys are to be condemned for not checking with you before they ask that exculpatory witnesses be allowed to take the stand.

That isn't hairsplitting, that is just invention.

BBM - where did you get that from and why would you make such a comment?

I've reviewed about 20 reports about what happened in court yesterday including tweets, articles and video. On that basis, I know that these prisoners are liars. Listen to the BBC link I posted above - it also explains the lying history of the prisoners.