Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[wasnt_me]

I have heard anywhere from 40-50% all over the internet, but I would like an actual source. So far, I have not seen any documentation that backs up this statistic which makes me quite dubious of its accuracy . Skeptically, it does not make sense to imprison almost 50% that are eventually acquitted.

The fact is, they don't imprison them all. They only imprison those that "pose a threat" or are a flight risk. For example, Mignini was convicted and he is on appeal. He is free, trying cases, but convicted during his first trial. It's just different over there, how they do things. Not bad, but different. I think they kept AK and RS and RG because of the heinous nature of the crime.

 

[SkewedView]

www.cbs.dk/content/download/67295/930261/file/Bruna Szego.pdf

This is the best and most thorough report I've been able to find so far.

Thank you for posting this. It is quite comprehensive in its data gathering. I should note, however, that it is out of date. The two big appeals reforms of 1999 (inadmissibility of new evidence etc & immediate administration of punishments before the appeals process)that the authors laud for, sickeningly, economic reasons were tossed out by the Italian Supreme Court as unconstitutional and unjust, a decision that I whole-heartedly agree with.

 

[wasnt_me]

Looks like Frank's trying to sweetalk himself out of a suit.

http://perugiashock.com/


Or maybe further into one???

 

[SkewedView]

Looks like Frank's trying to sweetalk himself out of a suit.

http://perugiashock.com/


Or maybe further into one???

Basically he's saying that Mignini was duped by a lying, corrupt Parugian LE. An interesting take on things, and not at all unheard of if true. That said, this is indeed quite a turnaround from Frank's usual stance on Mignini (though not on the police, that at least is consistant).

 

[Nova]

Actually, that far from the truth. I have asked you not to discuss me as though I am not here reading.

Honestly, otto, I don't understand what I'm doing that upsets you. I will try to meditate on it and see if I get a burst of enlightenment.

 

[Allusonz]

I know. Even within the context of lying, I'm totally trying to figure out about this doorbell. Doesn't the bell carry throughout to his final statement? And the reason it could be significant is that a car was seen in the driveway. we do not hear much about said car, but is it possible someone stopped by while he was in the middle of the crime? Because I just know of no circumstance that AK would be ringing the doorbell, or why even RG would think she was ringing it. Again, RS ringing it, that's possible in the context of RG's tale. But for that to happen, AK had to either not be with him or so far engrossed in something else that she was taking longer to get to the door with him.

Yes if my memory serves me correctly that and the times have stayed pretty constant

Or it could of been someone else completely different (thinking broken down car, friend of RG's etc)

 

[Nova]

Nova, my friend, when you talk about some person named Otto that is not with the program, that's is a problem for me. I would prefer that you simply respond to my comments rather than comment about me to others ... if you please.

I will do my best, otto, but at this point, there are roughly half-a-dozen to ten of us who do almost all the posting here. We are well aware of one another's positions on most of the evidence.

I don't quite understand the harm in saying "so-and-so discounts Alessi's testimony but finds Guede credible." If one errs, the original declarant appears directly to correct the mistake.

 

[Allusonz]

I'm confused on the lamp. Why wasn't it used at trial? I've seen it come up a few times as a reason to convict, yet it wasn't used as evidence. What's the real story behind the lamp?

Here is another little interesting tidbit for you. AK stated that they were reading the german edition of Harry Potter. It was said that this book was not found in RS's apartment until the video showed up and there it was as plain as day. It is the kind of stuff that makes you shake your head but people to this day believe there was not a copy of this book at RS's. It is much like the photo of the washroom after they had applied the chemical and released this what appeared to be be very blood soaked bathroom when in fact it was the chemical they ILE used

 

[Nova]

The bottom line is that it's not a good idea to be relying on the testimony of a known liar and child murderer when appealing a murder sentence. No one is relying on the word of Guede to convict the murderers, as his statement is after the fact.


"reasons for lying have been explained, time and again"

Reasons for lying? Time and Again? Not sure whether to call you on thinking there are reasons for lying or the condescending "time and again" remark.

No condescension. I was referring to posts with which I believe you are very familiar.

If RG made statements that are exculpatory to AK and RS, then their defense attorneys have to call those who heard the statements. The defense lawyers can't just sit on their hands, waiting for testimony from the Pope.

 

[Allusonz]

I have heard anywhere from 40-50% all over the internet, but I would like an actual source. So far, I have not seen any documentation that backs up this statistic which makes me quite dubious of its accuracy . Skeptically, it does not make sense to imprison almost 50% that are eventually acquitted.

I also heard that recently and believe it was one of the lawyers for either AK or RS in an interview IIRC or was in one of the Italian articles on the case. I as well did see the number though

 

[Nova]

My remark: "Mignini was consistent enough regarding the prosecution of Knox and Sollecito for eleven long months that the jury found the pair guilty."

What do you mean "which motive was that?"

The prosecutor was consistent in his statements for at least 11 months, and we know it was longer, so why do you suggest that he makes things up or is inconsistent? The jury, no different than any highly respected US jury, concluded that the pair were guilty. If the prosecutor was wishy washy, surely they would have noticed?

Give it a rest ... prosecutors can say anything they want, or nothing at all, after the trial ... as their job is over. Whether Knox caused the fatal blow or stood in another room with her fingers sticking in her ears - it makes no difference in terms of complicity and guilt ... or do you mean to argue that because Knox may have been in the next room with her fingers stuck in her ears, that she should be excused from the murder that happened in the next room?

BBM: Sorry, but even I know enough to know that isn't true. The sex orgy gone wrong gave way to the roommates' quarrel which in turn gave way to I forgot which motive...

 

[mdana]

Another TruTV program made me think about this case, and how it could have turned out if the Perugian LE/Mignini had been in charge. I am doing this all on memory so certain facts may be incorrect.

There was a murder of a woman in her 70s in Wilmington, DE. The police brought in her son who was in his 50s. He had called in a suspicious 911 call. He called before he entered his mother's house and discovered her body. While in custody, he gave this incredible story of picking up a hitchhiker on his way home. Approximately 5-10 minutes into the ride, the hitchiker started to accost him for money after awhile. The son stopped the truck, and they got into a fight outside of his truck. The son was able to hit him with a crowbar or something, and the son got into the truck. The son drove off, and he was so shaken up he went to his local bar and had 2-3 drinks. He went home to find his mother dead. He told the police he suspected the hitchiker (a black male in his 20s or 30s) might have been his mother's killer.

Since his story was obviously BS, they held him for a couple of days believing they had their suspect. However, after the labs results came back with bloody fingerprints that did not match the son, and the time of death was estimated at approximately 10:30 p.m. (the bar owner and patrons vouched for the son being at the bar from 10:00-12:00), they released him. They also started taking his story more seriously. They gave him mug shots to view and he identified a man from Baltimore. They got the man, and his fingerprints and blood matched the crime scene. He had stumbled onto the house which was about a half mile from where he had been left, because it was the only house without any lights shining. He assumed no one was home. He just wanted to rob the house for his cocaine habit, and he was suprised by the mother's presence. He killed her to silence her. The police could not find any connection between the killer and the son.

Now imagine if Mignini had gotten ahold of this case...

 

[SMK]

How odd. Because I myself had intuited that Mignini may have been a victim of what LE in Perugia were feeding to him:

Because yes, in the big disaster that the Meredith Kercher case is, not only I consider Mignini as an expression of his own culture, but I WANT to consider him too as a victim.
Strictly reasoning, indeed, he comes second in the construction of the disaster:

They told him to come over, because Amanda had accused Patrick.
They told him that she and Raffaele had lied about the call to 112.
They told him they had surprised them doing the laundry, soaked in Meredith blood.
They told him she had thrown her sweatshirt, soaked in Meredith’s blood.
They told him he had sterilised his shirt, soaked in Meredith’s blood.
They told him there were their shoeprints in the room.
They told him they knew Raffaele was cutting girls in Puglia.
They told him she was a *****, he was a perverted and they were both doped.
They told him Amanda and Meredith were hating each other.
They told him there was a strong bleach smell coming right from the drawer where the knife was.

He believed them, as every other prosecutor in Perugia would have.

http://perugiashock.com/

 

[wasnt_me]

Yes if my memory serves me correctly that and the times have stayed pretty constant

Or it could of been someone else completely different (thinking broken down car, friend of RG's etc)

True. The people in the broken down car didn't testify to trying to knock on the door, did they? They'd have to jump over that gate to achieve it, but now that begs the question, was the gate open....?

I remember the tow truck guy saying that it was. I took for granted that RG would just jump over the railing. The doorbell is why I had a previous theory that RG had an accomplice. He was waiting around for the accomplice, and the accomplice might have even hoisted him up to the window. Then, RG went to the bathroom before letting his accomplice in through the front door, but MK arrived while RG was on the toilet. I was thinking that at that time, the accomplice figured he had to do something, so he rang the doorbell and tried to get MK to open the door while RG was on the toilet, trying to figure out what to do.

Then, my theory is that some kind of confrontation started with MK, RG rushed out the bathroom, and the accomplice, who probably just ran out, leaving RG there to confront MK alone. It could also have something to do with those other witnesses saying they had some man almost knock them down in the street, but the times don't match up for that.

I just don't know why else the doorbell rings consistently in his story.

 

[wasnt_me]

How odd. Because I myself had intuited that Mignini may have been a victim of what LE in Perugia were feeding to him:

http://perugiashock.com/

I agree with Frank's premise on the one hand, but on the other, he's also asserting that Mig has an obligation now to go after the liars on his side of the case.

It's all good and well for Mig to sue newspapers, AK, and her parents, but what of the people who knowingly put out false information on HIS side?

Frank also balantly puts in quotes of abuse of AK and PL. Certainly hope that won't be a problem for him down the road.

 

[dgfred]

One side may get upset with the other side's interpretation of the case, that is perfectly understandable in a debate. However, one side (starts with a G) continually cries foul when their observations are weakend by the actual facts of the case and accuses the other side of alleged misbehavior while ignoring their own misdeeds. You really can't lecture others for mischaracterizations of others words when you engage in the process on a regular basis.

You might want to look in the mirror and take heed of you own advice.

Interesting from someone so 'new' here. I haven't cried 'foul' once regarding the other position (starts with I) weakening my position with actual 'facts' of the case... could you show any post where that has been done???

In fact, actual facts from the 'I' side are generally hard to come by IMO.

Maybe the 'heeding' needs to be done on your side :innocent: . At least Nova will apologize for a misunderstanding or assumed rudeness, which gains respect in my eyes. Rudeness is unnecessary, and usually distracts from the point trying to be made.

 

[SMK]

Bruce Fisher, July 6, 2011: top of Google News:

From Casey Anthony in Florida to Amanda Knox in Italy

http://www.groundreport.com/World/From-Casey-Anthony-in-Florida-to-Amanda-Knox-in-It/2940007

 

[OldSteve]

Bruce Fisher, July 6, 2011: top of Google News:

From Casey Anthony in Florida to Amanda Knox in Italy

http://www.groundreport.com/World/From-Casey-Anthony-in-Florida-to-Amanda-Knox-in-It/2940007

Thanks for this SMK.... I like the part:

"The evidence is clear in the Knox case; she had absolutely nothing to do with the crime of which she is accused. Anthony's case led to a finding of not guilty, which falls short of declaring innocence, concluding there wasn't enough evidence to convict."

http://www.groundreport.com/World/From-Casey-Anthony-in-Florida-to-Amanda-Knox-in-It/2940007

 

[mdana]

I just hope your trust/predictions/BF's predictions/etc are not premature. It might be a 'razzapalooza' if the hopes don't pan out in the end. It is a sort of 'match' (tho tragic), in that the trial will does have highs and lows for both sides... only in the end will WE as observers for the most part find out the judges/jurors decisions. If PMF bothers you so much, why don't you register and post your opinions in a polite way... if not confrontational or rude I'm sure you would get answers from good-faith honest posters like Fiona and Yummi, at least in my opinion you would.

This for example will be one report, the prosecution and Meredith's lawyer will counter with other reports/experts/opinions and the court/judge/jurors will weigh the value of each IMO. As I stated before, IMO the entire case does not rely on just these two pieces of the mosaic of evidence anyway.

The bolded statement is not exactly true.

I got banned from PMF for some relatively innocuous comments. Now I can't even access their site so it would be nice if posters with access can update the shenanigans in their quest for justice.

One thing I posted was in correcting one of the posters on his erroneous impression that AK's middle was evasive when if I am not mistaken it is Marie.

Which I think is Casey Anthony's middle name as well, so guilters need to update their false equivalency list.

Oh wow. I've been reading that thread in the past few days, and I saw you come into it. I realised you were new, and giving these people some rational counter-arguments to their entrenched position. I also saw you were perfectly polite about it (if mildly snarky with the middle name thing).

So I wondered, as an observer, what would happen. Any open-minded forum should welcome such contributions, and be able to debate them rationally. But I'd heard that the PMF isn't like that, and bans dissenting voices on sight. In my book, any debate that does that is automatically lost (guess how many times I've been banned from homoeopathy forums....).

I also noticed posters on the PMF criticising this JREF thread for being nothing but a "FOAK" love-in, after a series of mass bannings. I wasn't paying much attention when the bannings occurred, but I know nobody on JREF gets banned for the opinions they present, or at least certainly not for arguing guilt in the Kercher murder case! I also note that there are quite a few "guilters" able to post here, it's just that they seldom do and when they do they don't have much of substance to contribute.

So if you've been banned from there, after what I read, then that to me is a huge confirmation of the position that the pro-guilt lobby is based on woo and prejudice, and can't stand up to reasoned debate.

Rolfe.

http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7342730

 

[wasnt_me]

I never registered on PMF until I had to do so to view the RG skype translation. I really do enjoy that library of information they have complied on the case, but I don't post with them.

Sorry that you're new to the case, and you experienced something like that on another board.