Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[SMK]

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. That's all.

Gotcha! You are extremely "fair and balanced". And I am one to err on the side of complacency or submission or what have you - have always been this way, and has gotten me in a heap of trouble. so any thing too extreme I am sure is ME, not you, as they say on Seinfeld!:laugh:

 

[wasnt_me]

No, I'm not saying that. We might have to go to PMing, but I think you're just too kind, and you want to respond to share thoughts and gather ideas to come to the whole truth.

Others aren't here for that. For some, it's entertainment to upset people. You just have to recognize that. For some people, it's not about the truth, it's about whether they have "out debated" someone else, whether they even use facts or not to do it.

I think you're too sweet to recognize that someone's actually belittling you or making fun of your convictions rather than respectfully debating facts with you. You have to wonder what motives have people who are so certain that AK and RS are guilty, yet keep returning to the board to twist your thoughts around.

The rest I'm putting in a PM.

 

[otto]

So, about the murder of Meredith Kercher ... it is seriously unfortunate that someone that does not support the murderers should have to tolerate comments such as the above posted remarks ... along with the "sighs", "layman's terms", "you've been told before", "I told you not to respond to my comments" ... and so on.

 

[wasnt_me]

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

Wait, your list is confusing me. What is Marco in the mix for?

Also, I heard Napoleoni, they might use as a scapegoat.

Two prisoners that had contact with Aviello? When I wrote 4 prisoners, I should have written 3, because one of the 4 abstained from being involved. Of those three, one was MA, and the other two claimed to have heard RG's story first or second hand.

So tell me what's worrisome about the people on your list?

 

[SMK]

No, I'm not saying that. We might have to go to PMing, but I think you're just too kind, and you want to respond to share thoughts and gather ideas to come to the whole truth.

Others aren't here for that. For some, it's entertainment to upset people. You just have to recognize that. For some people, it's not about the truth, it's about whether they have "out debated" someone else, whether they even use facts or not to do it.

I think you're too sweet to recognize that someone's actually belittling you or making fun of your convictions rather than respectfully debating facts with you. You have to wonder what motives have people who are so certain that AK and RS are guilty, yet keep returning to the board to twist your thoughts around.

The rest I'm putting in a PM.

:waitasec:................

 

[SMK]

So, about the murder of Meredith Kercher ... it is seriously unfortunate that someone that does not support the murderers should have to tolerate comments such as the above posted remarks ... along with the "sighs", "layman's terms", "you've been told before", "I told you not to respond to my comments" ... and so on.

Oh, Otto, you answer with an idle tongue. We can all agree to disagree. And I hope my comment about the Kercher's attorney did not offend you. I have nothing but sympathy for the Kercher family; it is the attorney who I think is just out for money. Now hush. :slap:

 

[SMK]

Wait, your list is confusing me. What is Marco in the mix for?

Also, I heard Napoleoni, they might use as a scapegoat.

Two prisoners that had contact with Aviello? When I wrote 4 prisoners, I should have written 3, because one of the 4 abstained from being involved. Of those three, one was MA, and the other two claimed to have heard RG's story first or second hand.

So tell me what's worrisome about the people on your list?

Only that the Umbria piece stated these were "for the rebuttal by the prosecution".

 

[wasnt_me]

Very interesting.

Frank has written a piece that seems to imply, well outright says, that the prosecution intimidated the witnesses and it only worked on the one who no longer remembered anything.

http://perugiashock.com/

He also suggested, or outright said, that RG was having an attack of conscience in jail because the prosecution was pressuring him to finger AK and RS, and that was why RG had the converstion with MA.

Now, without fact, it's conjecture. But interesting conjecture.....

 

[SMK]

Very interesting.

Frank has written a piece that seems to imply, well outright says, that the prosecution intimidated the witnesses and it only worked on the one who no longer remembered anything.

http://perugiashock.com/

He also suggested, or outright said, that RG was having an attack of conscience in jail because the prosecution was pressuring him to finger AK and RS, and that was why RG had the converstion with MA.

Now, without fact, it's conjecture. But interesting conjecture.....

I posted this link this am! Yes, the piece is profound to those who think Frank is in earnest. Great minds think alike. :great:

 

[wasnt_me]

I guess I need to read that piece again. It's hard for me to stay focused in those translated pages.

I think RG can't steer too far from his last story, because he got his sentence in part due to not being the one wielding the knife. He can't say anything to mess that up.

He can corroberate what the prisoners said or he can say he never had that conversation. The defense should rightly ask him what really happened that night, but short of that, they can refer to his skype call and prison diary, neither of which mention AK and RS's involvement.

They can also attack his changing story and ask him which is correct, the first story, which is somewhat the same as the prisoners retold, or is it the one involving AK and Rs. In light of all his versions, the jury will have to decide to believe his testimony, or his diary, his skype call, etc and so on.

I believe he can't invent new facts, because those will be challenged.

We'll see. I'm very excited about it, because if they can just get to the truth....I want them to get the real truth out of RG no matter what it is.

 

[wasnt_me]

Wait.

What happened to the guy testifying that MK was killed in a drug deal?

Or over a drug deal?
:waitasec:

 

[wasnt_me]

I posted this link this am! Yes, the piece is profound to those who think Frank is in earnest. Great minds think alike. :great:

Oh no wonder some of it sounded familiar when I was reading it. Now I remember I'd read your post and said I'd go look the article up later!:rocker:

I'm sure I told you that I was also absentminded???

 

[SMK]

I guess I need to read that piece again. It's hard for me to stay focused in those translated pages.

I think RG can't steer too far from his last story, because he got his sentence in part due to not being the one wielding the knife. He can't say anything to mess that up.

He can corroberate what the prisoners said or he can say he never had that conversation. The defense should rightly ask him what really happened that night, but short of that, they can refer to his skype call and prison diary, neither of which mention AK and RS's involvement.

They can also attack his changing story and ask him which is correct, the first story, which is somewhat the same as the prisoners retold, or is it the one involving AK and Rs. In light of all his versions, the jury will have to decide to believe his testimony, or his diary, his skype call, etc and so on.

I believe he can't invent new facts, because those will be challenged.

We'll see. I'm very excited about it, because if they can just get to the truth....I want them to get the real truth out of RG no matter what it is.

Yes, that is the hope. But is it too much to expect from Guede? If they can just infer or reveal the truth through his evasiveness, it may be enough. Let us hope.

 

[SMK]

Oh no wonder some of it sounded familiar when I was reading it. Now I remember I'd read your post and said I'd go look the article up later!:rocker:

I'm sure I told you that I was also absentminded???

Ain't we all!!:great:

 

[SMK]

Wait.

What happened to the guy testifying that MK was killed in a drug deal?

Or over a drug deal?
:waitasec:

Not sure if he testified. But that was a bad story, in any case. To make Meredith out to have run up a huge drug debt....not too smart.

 

[wasnt_me]

Yeah, let's just hope they forgot about him, since he was 11th hour before the last court date.

 

[Nova]

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 agree there is much to respect in otto. I think he is very bright, obviously knowledgeable about this case and strong in his convictions as to the guilt of all three defendants. I have not forgotten the many times he helped me when I was trying to sort out all the players and details of MK's murder.

And that's where I should stop, because we aren't really supposed to discuss one another here.

 

[SMK]

I agree there is much to respect in otto. I think he is very bright, obviously knowledgeable about this case and strong in his convictions as to the guilt of all three defendants. I have not forgotten the many times he helped me when I was trying to sort out all the players and details of MK's murder.

And that's where I should stop, because we aren't really supposed to discuss one another here.

Ah, yes...right. Well, if it is upbeat and constructive, and tending toward robust harmony, then I say it is important and interesting. So, thanks! I feel Mignini is similarly honest and admirable (though he does have kooky "fixed ideas")----in the end, though, justice and truth ought to win out. If a theory is wrong, the conviction which sprang from it ought to be overturned. Just wish clarity would come forth from the murkiness of this crazy appeals process.

 

[SMK]

Yeah, let's just hope they forgot about him, since he was 11th hour before the last court date.

Maybe they told him to retract the tale? I sure have not seen any news coverage on it.....:waitasec: Let us hope so. Just makes the prosecution look stronger, to be viewing Meredith as a "hard-core" drug user.....

 

[wasnt_me]

Ain't we all!!:great:

Yes, because the other story you were talking about came from here:

http://www.crimeblog.it/post/6952/d...nel-corso-della-prossima-udienza-il-27-giugno

Not here:

http://www.umbrialeft.it/notizie/meredith-mario-alessi-aula-come-testimone

but I figured it out.

I didn't see that all the people would be called as a rebuttal, but it's hard to discern what the paragraph is saying through translation. i could be wrong.

At this point, after the five witnesses who cleared Amanda and Raffaele Giancarlo Costagliola the Attorney General has requested and obtained by the Assize Court of Appeal that, as a rebuttal, Rudy Hermann Guede be heard, that in the past has already denied the story Alessi, his friend Giacomo Benedetti, two prisoners who had contact with Luciano Aviello, the head of the squad and assistant chief Mark Chat Monica Napoleoni.

Sounds like the article is saying that yes, as a rebuttal, which also means response (remember this is a translation), RG will be called because he'd denied Alessi's claim in the past. He may want Benedetti for the same thing, but I don't know why. BUT we also don't know what all 3 hours of the skype call was about. Then it seems he wants two prisions who know Aviello to testify, probably to discredit him--as he should be, and then they want Marc Chat and Monica, but it doesn' say why. The article seems to say that these requests happened after the conclusion of testimony, not because of the testimony, though, as I said, I'm not good with the translate, so it could very well be BECAUSE of it.

After reading what I said here, what do you think? I'm open to suggestions. I might try the "bing" translator to see if it does better for me.

Bing translated like this:

At this point, after five witnesses who cleared Amanda and Raffaele, the Attorney General Giancarlo Costagliola asked and obtained from the Court of Assizes of appeal that, as currently being heard Rudy Hermann Guede, who in the past has already refuted the tale of Alessi, his friend James Benedetti, two prisoners who had contact with Luciano Aviello, the head of the mobile team and Marco Chat Deputy Monica Napoleons.

and this is what Dempsey says:

And by Saturday's end, it had gotten even longer, as the court agreed to call a number of counter-witnesses requested by the prosecution, including two more prisoners and two police officials.

The court also agreed to hear Giacomo Benedetti, the friend of Rudy's whose Skype conversation with Guede while Guede was on the lam in Germany led to his arrest, as well as Guede himself

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/arti...tify-in-Knox-appeal-1430190.php#ixzz1Pm5sVYso

So the two prisoners who know Aviello, the two police officers Marc and Monica are listed in her counter-witness part.