Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[SMK]

That could be the six prosecution witnesses. Are two prosecution prisoners going to disagree with the other defense five? Is Rudy required to answer the single question of whether he told the stories to the prisoners? Can we expect another circus atmosphere in the court with Raffaele's lawyer yelling at Meredith's lawyer?

Yip, yip, and yip.

 

[otto]

I have found, sadly, that this has sometimes been the case in the U.S. ....

I remember discussing that way-back ... about how prosecutors in the US are elected and that they can lose their jobs if their prosecution rates are not high enough. I don't know of any other country that elects prosecutors. Are you? I'm familiar with prosecutors that are hired into gov't positions and where they generally establish a lifelong career.

 

[wasnt_me]

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.

It's amazing that drug addicts who actually couldn't get their days and holidays straight on the prosecution side are okay, but prisoners' testimony should be discounted. It's amazing that no one knows what the others were in jail for, but they are immediately dismissed while backing MA. It's amazing that AK is a murderer and a liar, but she sure the hell knows when a blood drop landed on a sink.

It seems to me that the court has done the same thing with these prison witnesses as they did with the drug addict. They are calling for more testimony. To support or refute the drug addict, they called in the bus and disco people. Now, to substantiate or refute the prisoners, they're calling RG, his skype friend, and somem police officers.

 

[wasnt_me]

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.

Or maybe his crime is not relevant to the case or his ability to testify, so it's a strawman that never should have been brought up in the first place.

 

[wasnt_me]

High -jinx, that's why. Tried to trick us. :furious:

Which is why I wonder why you bother being this person's entertainment.

 

[Nova]

It's amazing that drug addicts who actually couldn't get their days and holidays straight on the prosecution side are okay, but prisoners' testimony should be discounted. It's amazing that no one knows what the others were in jail for, but they are immediately dismissed while backing MA. It's amazing that AK is a murderer and a liar, but she sure the hell knows when a blood drop landed on a sink.

It seems to me that the court has done the same thing with these prison witnesses as they did with the drug addict. They are calling for more testimony. To support or refute the drug addict, they called in the bus and disco people. Now, to substantiate or refute the prisoners, they're calling RG, his skype friend, and somem police officers.

Makes sense to me. It would have been unethical for the defense to ignore the jailhouse witnesses and their exculpatory testimony and it would be unethical for the prosecution not to attempt to refute them.

That the result is a "circus-like" atmosphere is a result of the heightened media interest in this case. No one need blame lawyers for doing their jobs.

 

[wasnt_me]

Exactly. So much for all the protestations of "serious" concern for justice for Meredith Kercher. And so much for admitting one's own mistakes, even though one is lightening-quick to condemn the mistakes of others!

I'm thinking was't_me was right: there's no way to deal with the word games except ignore them.

This bears repeating, because your sanity is most important.

 

[Nova]

Or maybe his crime is not relevant to the case or his ability to testify, so it's a strawman that never should have been brought up in the first place.

Technically "ad hominem" rather than "strawman" as attacks go, but your point is well made.

I think we all know enough to be wary of jailhouse "snitching," but to suggest, as another poster did, that defense lawyers should ignore potentially exculpatory testimony is absurd.

 

[wasnt_me]

Thanks! I mean that's just the same thing the other side was saying about the drug addict. Even though he was disproved through other witnesses, the other side defended him for his right to speak even though he was homeless and a drug addict.

The innocent side kept saying homelessness and drugs didn't matter. what mattered what his testimony didn't add up.

Now that there are prisoners saying AK and RS were not involved, they are being attacked for the same thing that the other side defended the drug addict for.

There's no arguing with hypocrits.

 

[wasnt_me]

My take on it is that The mob-brother should have kept his wanna-be-testifying-self quiet.

The other 4, If they had something against RG, and ganged up to testify against him to hurt him, then they would have said that he said he'd been there at MK's house alone. Since they didn't, I assume they have no grudge against RG.

Now, the other witness who claims his name was forged on the letter, he says the defense did that, but some what I read about how this came together, the prisoners all signed a letter, so maybe he means one of the prisoners forged his name. OR he's lying because he decided to back out of testifying.

Then one says he got his information from MA, right? The the other said he heard RG talking about it to MA?

The conversation happened apparently November 18th 2009, before RG's appeal ended, and he was thinking of testifying at it. Correct? According to MA, RG was wanting to "tell the truth" about what had happened, which was very different than what had been reported.

I tend to believe this conversation happened or even almost happened. We can't know if they were "purposely" out of range of cameras. How you do that in a prison, I don't know, and I guess officials need to look at that--if you can even do it. that part just sounds fishy to me.

 

[wasnt_me]

I'm sorry, wm, I knew EXACTLY what you meant and I think it's a great point.

And then I suddenly realized I had always assumed the actual text was in Italian and thought I should check: we're talking about a misunderstanding of Italian vernacular, not a misunderstanding of English slang by Italian readers, right?

You know, I was thinking, what if AK had said, "Okay, then I'm going to see Forrest Gump tonight..." on her text message to PL. They'd probably have arrested Tom Hanks!

Or if she'd said, "Roger. See you later, good night," then they'd be looking for Roger.

 

[SMK]

I remember discussing that way-back ... about how prosecutors in the US are elected and that they can lose their jobs if their prosecution rates are not high enough. I don't know of any other country that elects prosecutors. Are you? I'm familiar with prosecutors that are hired into gov't positions and where they generally establish a lifelong career.

no, the US indeed is a bad system.....

 

[SMK]

Or maybe his crime is not relevant to the case or his ability to testify, so it's a strawman that never should have been brought up in the first place.

Right, Kercher's attorney is a rude . Everyone knew what the man had done, and to try and discredit him via a picture was unseemly and vulgar and rude. ETA:In the same vein, it ought not be Toto's heroin use or homelessness which discredits him, but his contradictory statements.

 

[SMK]

Which is why I wonder why you bother being this person's entertainment.

I have grown attached to Otto, for some bizarre reason.

 

[Nova]

no, the US indeed is a bad system.....

There are two sides to the issue. I, too, am uncomfortable with having D.A.s and judges elected (or subject to voter recall, which amounts to the same thing).

On the other hand, there needs to be clear methods for removing those who engage in unethical conduct. "Peer review panels" maybe the best way, but there is always a tendency to get "cozy" with one's peers.

On the whole, however, I'd rather the judiciary be run by bureaucrats than gladhanders.

 

[wasnt_me]

I have grown attached to Otto, for some bizarre reason.

I don't even know what to say about that, because it's an unhealthy relationship. He purposely says things to make you
:banghead: :sick: :maddening:

but you're saying you like that?

:waitasec:

 

[SMK]

I don't even know what to say about that, because it's an unhealthy relationship. He purposely says things to make you
:banghead: :sick: :maddening:

but you're saying you like that?

:waitasec:

No, I do not like that, but I respect his solid stance, even if I disagree with it. As with certain professors when I was younger, who held very conservative views that I may have disagreed with, but respected all the same. And it is good to have an adversary to bounce things off of; you and Nova do a splendid job with otto and fred. either that, or I am really crazy as a loon!

 

[wasnt_me]

Who are these two police officers they also want to testify? And what are they debunking or supporting?

If I were the Defense, I would want RG's diary in evidence, too, since his stories about being alone, sitting on the toilet, have come into the trial.

If we have:

1. his diary
2. 4 prison witnesses
3. a skype call
4. maybe his german statement
5. the police who initially arrested him

All saying he said AK and RS were not involved, then...what? I mean, isn't that enough proof to counter him lying and saying they were?

 

[SMK]

Who are these two police officers they also want to testify? And what are they debunking or supporting?

If I were the Defense, I would want RG's diary in evidence, too, since his stories about being alone, sitting on the toilet, have come into the trial.

If we have:

1. his diary
2. 4 prison witnesses
3. a skype call
4. maybe his german statement
5. the police who initially arrested him

All saying he said AK and RS were not involved, then...what? I mean, isn't that enough proof to counter him lying and saying they were?

But the WEIRD thing is, the Skype guy and the cops are there as a REBUTTAL by the prosecution......:waitasec: I mean:

1. Rudy Guede
2. Giacomo Benedetti (Rudy's Skype call friend)
3., 4. Two prisoners who have had contact with Aviello
5. Marco Chiacchiera (Chief of the squadra mobile)
6. Monica Napoleoni

 

[wasnt_me]

No, I do not like that, but I respect his solid stance, even if I disagree with it. As with certain professors when I was younger, who held very conservative views that I may have disagreed with, but respected all the same. And it is good to have an adversary to bounce things off of; you and Nova do a splendid job with otto and fred. either that, or I am really crazy as a loon!

I respect people with different opinions. I lose respect when they are unwilling to substaniate them, when they refuse to concede points that they've lost, refuse to see what my true intentions in the debate are, and refuse to respect when I have a valid point.

The other day, we had the "mop" issue, where I said the mop was in the hall closet. Dgfred said it was outside. I asked for a picture to prove it. Finally, he gave one. I conceded that the mop in his picture could be the mop in question, and I even got another picture with a better view of said mop. I think I even said I was proud of Dgfred for going ahead and supplying the picture. Turned out to be a very positive end to our debate, even though I turned out to be mistaken.That's how I like debates to go. Points are laid out and proven and then you move beyond it. We don't have to ever debate that mop again. I'm glad. With other things, you can prove the point again and again and again and again and again, but it never sinks in, gets acknowledged or moved beyond. That's why I just bow out. Because you can only say the sky is blue so many times.

So, when something like that happens, if I'm able to concede, it's not a fair conversation if the other person will NOT on a different point that I am correct about. That's all. Also the name calling of the suspects, the hyperbolies, all that gets very tiring for an intelligent debate.