Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #17

[dgfred]

What is your understanding of why "some here have a problem with it."??:waitasec:

My understanding is because the two 'innocents' got caught up in lying to detectives and thus under suspicion of being involved in a murder.

 

[dgfred]

Just took notice of a post on PMF, where it is said that on Websleuths , desperation has made posters attack the Kerchers. Surprised me, because I do not think anyone has attacked them here. Most have said they feel sympathy, understand their position, etc....

How is attacking their lawyer and claiming he is after the money not attacking the Kerchers? Is he supposed to be misrepresenting them and going on his own to gain money for himself? What money is he supposed to be getting anyway?

 

[SMK]

*Perhaps they should have gone to the Memorial thing for Meredith, instead of smoking pot and going out to eat. Perhaps they should have stayed clear-headed if there was the possibility of at least one of them being questioned that evening. Odd behavior yes, paranoid maybe from smoking pot... stupid definately IMO.

*Why does the police saying 'they have proof they were there' have ANY effect on a totally innocent person? They were not tortured! Why become 'unnerved'??? Potty breaks and after-pizza snacks excluded.

"I don't know" or "I have no idea what you are talking about" works just fine.
Whether they accept it or not has no bearing, you are innocent. Instead... ask to be shown the PROOF that you were at the crime scene or not telling the truth.

Most people under suspicion of murder are disliked, it is only natural. IMO their behavior and statements are what made them the 'odd ones out' and brought them under suspicion.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the was plenty of stress on AK and RS... just the exact cause of that stress is viewed much differently between you and I :innocent: .

I agree that they behaved stupidly.
I myself was an odd 20 year old, and acted a lot like Amanda, although strangely enough, I never even tried pot. I became very "normal" in my 30s. I just do not think there would be such massive doubts on the part of intelligent, educated, professional people - here and elsewhere - if things were as simple as you say. Let us see what Hellman and the jury think. November 2007 now seems far away in time. I think this case should wrap, one way or another.

 

[Sonata]

Hi everyone!

It's been a few days - gotten caught up in the horrible riots here in London so will need to take a while to catch up on things before rejoining the debate! Have I missed any key news?

 

[dgfred]

Hi everyone!

It's been a few days - gotten caught up in the horrible riots here in London so will need to take a while to catch up on things before rejoining the debate! Have I missed any key news?

Hello, no knew news really. Please be safe and take care.

 

[SMK]

Hi everyone!

It's been a few days - gotten caught up in the horrible riots here in London so will need to take a while to catch up on things before rejoining the debate! Have I missed any key news?

Yikes, I do not envy you over there. Do be careful.
Nope, just waiting for the Sep 5th hearing; Italian courts on vacation for the month of August.

 

[emyr]

How is attacking their lawyer and claiming he is after the money not attacking the Kerchers? Is he supposed to be misrepresenting them and going on his own to gain money for himself? What money is he supposed to be getting anyway?

That sounds like someone is attacking the Kercher's lawyer. If you said something about Bruce Fisher being in it for the money, I wouldn't describe that as "attacking Knox's family."

As for lawyers, I usually find that they are motivated to win. Whatever their initial theory is, once they've set on that course, they stay on it until they win the day at all costs. It's why I suggest to those who are thinking of divorce to try everything but the lawyer route if at all possible. Scorched earth.

 

[dgfred]

That sounds like someone is attacking the Kercher's lawyer. If you said something about Bruce Fisher being in it for the money, I wouldn't describe that as "attacking Knox's family."

I don't see the comparison :waitasec: .

If I said AK's lawyer was only in it for the money and misrepresenting her, that
might be similar.

 

[OldSteve]

Yikes, I do not envy you over there. Do be careful.
Nope, just waiting for the Sep 5th hearing; Italian courts on vacation for the month of August.

Got to say, we've gone over every point that could be gone over, and then some... so I'm waiting for the verdict....

 

[Allusonz]

I think it was tin cans and a string that went from RS's to RG's. Makes the most sense.

The weird part of it is that getting the "okay" from PL and turning off their phones meant they planned to do something wrong. That is the implication, right? And it fits with bringing the knife before hand. Yet, without phones and the ok from PL, the turning off the phones and toting of the knife don't make sense. Neither does having a chance meeting with RG on the streets. RG said he and AK said "hi, bye" to each other if they did see each other. Why in the world would it change on a night that he'd see her with her BF? And it makes no sense for them to break their habit of spending the night at his place, and going to her house for a shower and lunch the next day.

What really happened does follow their week-long pattern. They spend the night at RS's, AK goes home for the shower.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

OMG too funny sounds like you will have to come up with a new song for this one

 

[SMK]

Got to say, we've gone over every point that could be gone over, and then some... so I'm waiting for the verdict....

I feel the same, Steve. It has all been said 100 x. I want to know what HELLMAN and his JURY have to say about all of this.............but now we may have to wait until November, according to some....

 

[Allusonz]

Good for you (and lucky for your son)!

I'm sorry if my post struck a nerve. I thought I had made it clear that I was NOT presuming to diagnose AK from afar, that in fact I have absolutely no qualifications to diagnose anybody in any context.

If that wasn't clear, I do apologize. At the end of the day, I think people are just trying to say nothing about AK's allegedly "odd" behavior indicates she committed a murder.

Too cute. Nope definately did not strike a nerve so relax and no need to apologize. I am just presenting it from a different angle as I know how much my son went through with the bullying and kids can be cruel. I just simply think that the professionals that see them up close and personal should be the ones to diagnose. Often we are discussing individuals we have never met thus this is just a personal observation from a different point of view :giggle:

 

[Allusonz]

Not really an issue IMO. Don't think it will change anywhere in the world.

As a detective you have a suspicion at least that an accused (with another accused) has committed a murder. The accused has so far not been forthcoming with the facts of what they did the night of the murder. You tell one accused that the other has left them without an alibi (a lie) when before that they had a joined alibi. That accused suddenly drops 'their' alibi and changes his/her story now leaving the other without an alibi. Now the detective goes to the other accused saying the first accused has left the second accused without an alibi (no lie). The second accused now SUDDENLY changes his/her story, not accusing the other party of the murder because they did not do that to him/her, but bringing a totally new suspect into the picture as actually committing the murder. Sounds like good detective work to me. I understand why some here have a problem with it though :innocent: .

As a detective/investigator you may have a hypothesis but if the forensics do not back up the hypothesis an investigator has to change the theory and explore other avenues. It happens all the time.

You simply can't make the evidence fit the hypothesis when you want it to

 

[Allusonz]

How is attacking their lawyer and claiming he is after the money not attacking the Kerchers? Is he supposed to be misrepresenting them and going on his own to gain money for himself? What money is he supposed to be getting anyway?

This is simply grasping at straws. No one here to my knowledge has attacked the Kerchers.

It is also fact that in a civil case such as this the lawyer does receive a percentage of what is awarded that would be motivation for some lawyers and I am of the personal belief that he has crossed over an ethical line at times.

For someone on another forum to state that we are attacking the Kerchers sounds like desperation to me plain and simple

 

[dgfred]

As a detective/investigator you may have a hypothesis but if the forensics do not back up the hypothesis an investigator has to change the theory and explore other avenues. It happens all the time.

You simply can't make the evidence fit the hypothesis when you want it to

You don't need forensic evidence to have a suspicion.

How is the suspect changing their alibi and accusing an innocent person of murder 'making the evidence fit'?

 

[dgfred]

This is simply grasping at straws. No one here to my knowledge has attacked the Kerchers.

It is also fact that in a civil case such as this the lawyer does receive a percentage of what is awarded that would be motivation for some lawyers and I am of the personal belief that he has crossed over an ethical line at times.

That is not answering the question that was asked.

What 'ethical line'???

 

[Allusonz]

You don't need forensic evidence to have a suspicion.

How is the suspect changing their alibi and accusing an innocent person of murder 'making the evidence fit'?

I don't believe I stated that you needed evidence to have a suspicion. You do though need to have evidence to back up that suspicion.

I understand that some don't see what others of us see. That is everyones individual choice and I know that there are some that will never see it my way or vice versa

I feel confident enough from all I have reviewed with respect to my opinion on this case

 

[Allusonz]

That is not answering the question that was asked.

What 'ethical line'???

I am not going to go over the various things that have been posted about the Kercher lawyer. I think they have been gone over many times by all of us. The best way I can state it is that the prosecution is there to represent the victim in the criminal proceedings. The Kercher lawyer is there to represent the family in the civil proceedings

 

[dgfred]

I don't believe I stated that you needed evidence to have a suspicion. You do though need to have evidence to back up that suspicion.

I understand that some don't see what others of us see. That is everyones individual choice and I know that there are some that will never see it my way or vice versa

I feel confident enough from all I have reviewed with respect to my opinion on this case

I believe you stated 'if the forensics don't back it up' then the investigator has to change their theory.

Since their theory was the AK was involved, why would they need to change their theory after AK admitted being involved and accused another of the murder??? I believe that would be evidence enough to back up the suspicion.

 

[dgfred]

I am not going to go over the various things that have been posted about the Kercher lawyer. I think they have been gone over many times by all of us. The best way I can state it is that the prosecution is there to represent the victim in the criminal proceedings. The Kercher lawyer is there to represent the family in the civil proceedings

Right. So what ethical line was crossed in your opinion?

The Kercher's lawyer is also representing the family in the criminal proceedings against the murderers of their daughter. Nothing wrong with that either.