Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #17

[Allusonz]

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.

Sorry fred I don't buy this argument and never have. It is like a hail mary pass in the 4th quarter of a football game. This again has been explained many times. The only time their stories changed was the night of the 5/6 under pressure.

I simply find this to be a desperation argument

 

[Allusonz]

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.

Actually he is not representing them in the criminal proceedings. That is why you have a prosecution. His purpose was first to have her body released very early on and then for the civil proceedings

 

[dgfred]

Sorry fred I don't buy this argument and never have. It is like a hail mary pass in the 4th quarter of a football game. This again has been explained many times. The only time their stories changed was the night of the 5/6 under pressure.

I simply find this to be a desperation argument

That's kinda funny, no wonder you are perfectly confident in your views regarding the case if true.

 

[dgfred]

Actually he is not representing them in the criminal proceedings. That is why you have a prosecution. His purpose was first to have her body released very early on and then for the civil proceedings

Wonder why he gets the opportunity to cross examine the testing reviewers at the appeal?

Why is he allowed to speak at all if he isn't representing them at appeals?

 

[Allusonz]

That's kinda funny, no wonder you are perfectly confident in your views regarding the case if true.

I don't find anything about this case funny. I find many aspects of this case to be quite sad. I have researched this case to my satisfaction. I have had reservations about a number of things such as the original DNA findings. When the expert report came out it simply solidified by opinions

 

[ChasingMoxie]

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.

Wrong.

 

[Allusonz]

Wonder why he gets the opportunity to cross examine the testing reviewers at the appeal?

Why is he allowed to speak at all if he isn't representing them at appeals?

As stated before, he found a loophole in the law from a civil standpoint that is now allowing him to do so. I think this to be a very risky move as the DNA experts were able to find instances such as Stephanoni stating that the knife was analyzed in the middle of 50 - 60 items from her testimony at the first trial and that is simply one instance. This could potentially backfire. I simply don't know if at this point the independant experts report can be shot down.

I do see the potential for fallout from other things though. That is my opinion we will simply have to wait and see what the judge allows and does not allow

 

[dgfred]

Wrong.

Maybe you should edit in 'IMO'???

How can stating you were at the crime scene, you met the murderer, the murderer went to the cottage with you, you were in the kitchen with your eyes closed when you heard a scream of the victim being MURDERED not be admitting being involved???

Perhaps :innocent: you can contribute to the discussion a bit more.

 

[dgfred]

I don't find anything about this case funny. I find many aspects of this case to be quite sad. I have researched this case to my satisfaction. I have had reservations about a number of things such as the original DNA findings. When the expert report came out it simply solidified by opinions

What was funny IMO was you stating my opinion came from a point of 'desperation' :innocent: ... not anything about the case. Which was also your opinion... making me wonder about your other opinions :waitasec: somewhat.

 

[dgfred]

As stated before, he found a loophole in the law from a civil standpoint that is now allowing him to do so. I think this to be a very risky move as the DNA experts were able to find instances such as Stephanoni stating that the knife was analyzed in the middle of 50 - 60 items from her testimony at the first trial and that is simply one instance. This could potentially backfire. I simply don't know if at this point the independant experts report can be shot down.

I do see the potential for fallout from other things though. That is my opinion we will simply have to wait and see what the judge allows and does not allow

So a 'loophole in the law from a civil standpoint' allows him to cross examine witnesses/experts during the criminal trial but he is NOT representing the victim's family in the criminal trial?????? Your argument is kind of confusing IMO. :waitasec:

 

[SMK]

Maybe you should edit in 'IMO'???

How can stating you were at the crime scene, you met the murderer, the murderer went to the cottage with you, you were in the kitchen with your eyes closed when you heard a scream of the victim being MURDERED not be admitting being involved???

Perhaps :innocent: you can contribute to the discussion a bit more.

We have been through this again and again.
She took it all back, said it was a pile of rubbish.
Said it was unreal, like a dream. They were looking for a black, and they jumped on Patrick's text.
She did not "admit" to anything like a reasonable person.
How stupid do you think we are, fred? :razz:

 

[dgfred]

We have been through this again and again.
She took it all back, said it was a pile of rubbish.
Said it was unreal, like a dream. They were looking for a black, and they jumped on Patrick's text.
She did not "admit" to anything like a reasonable person.
How stupid do you think we are, fred? :razz:

Why act/post this way??? :maddening:

How does taking it back later effect how the investigators AT THE TIME were viewing her AT THAT MOMENT? That is the current scenario for the debate we were having. An investigator already suspicious with a person about a murder DOES NOT CHANGE that suspicion/theory after a confession to being involved... it would only reinforce it IMO.

Thereby I don't understand your last question... is it retorical?

 

[SMK]

Why act/post this way??? :maddening:

How does taking it back later effect how the investigators AT THE TIME were viewing her AT THAT MOMENT? That is the current scenario for the debate we were having. An investigator already suspicious with a person about a murder DOES NOT CHANGE that suspicion/theory after a confession to being involved... it would only reinforce it IMO.

Thereby I don't understand your last question... is it retorical?

Oh, fred, you and I know eachother well enough now, to tease a bit. I assure you, I am saying and razzing all in a very light-hearted spirit. I had assured Salem that I would not post if I could not be decent and civil, which all posters on here deserve. :innocent: I apologize unreservedly if I came across as seriously irate, which I am not.

I will admit, Amanda is where she is today, due to her handling of the questions posed to her. Really bad form, and too bad her parents were not in town to phone, and bring a lawyer. Yes, it would have aroused suspicion in me, were I a police detective.

 

[SMK]

Doug Bremmer posted this link on Facebook: A confirmation that the Knox scenario, or something similar, can and does occur here in the US (I never doubter this):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...forensics-discredited-testimony_n_922219.html

 

[dgfred]

Oh, you got me then :blushing: with the tease. Apology accepted.

 

[SMK]

Oh, you got me then :blushing: with the tease. Apology accepted.

I am always teasing when it is followed with a:
:razz:

 

[Nova]

Ok, I get it now. I still think there is a big difference between attacking someone in a group and 'lying' to police. I don't necessary see them as weak. Especially AK showed exactly the opposite during her trials. Still I don't think any of them would have attacked Meredith by themselves. The group dynamic made it worse because IMO they supplement each other in all the wrong ways.

The examples of coercions shown in this thread show exactly that this is no coercion. The examples showed coercions in a monotone setting with 1 or 2 interrogators. I have not seen any example of coercions in a room full of people. The examples also showed coercions usually take a very long time and not just a few hours. The few people that falsely confess in a few hours are usually kids or people with low mental capability like Karl Fontenot. Both AK and RS are bright young students. I would recommend to read the trial testimony of AK (available on PMF). Even the biggest 'friends' start to frown reading that gibberish

So you imagine that a roomful of authorities yelling at you in a foreign language is LESS intimidating than a conversation with one or two officers in your native tongue?

Yes, AK is bright, but she was relatively young, didn't speak the language well, and was interrogated by a gang in the middle of the night after a very stressful week. These factors worked against her intelligence (an intelligence that no one describes as street smart or crafty).

 

[emyr]

Ok, I get it now. I still think there is a big difference between attacking someone in a group and 'lying' to police. I don't necessary see them as weak. Especially AK showed exactly the opposite during her trials. Still I don't think any of them would have attacked Meredith by themselves. The group dynamic made it worse because IMO they supplement each other in all the wrong ways.

The examples of coercions shown in this thread show exactly that this is no coercion. The examples showed coercions in a monotone setting with 1 or 2 interrogators. I have not seen any example of coercions in a room full of people. The examples also showed coercions usually take a very long time and not just a few hours. The few people that falsely confess in a few hours are usually kids or people with low mental capability like Karl Fontenot. Both AK and RS are bright young students. I would recommend to read the trial testimony of AK (available on PMF). Even the biggest 'friends' start to frown reading that gibberish

Okay, I found an example of a Sargeant who confessed to sexually abusing an 11-year-old boy after one hour of questioning. (see number 3)
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/library/coerced.htm

 

[SMK]

Okay, I found an example of a Sargeant who confessed to sexually abusing an 11-year-old boy after one hour of questioning. (see number 3)
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/library/coerced.htm

Thanks for the link. Very interesting reading....:gthanks:

 

[Nova]

I understand, but I think the argument has always been that AK and RS were a bit foggy from pot smoking, a bit odd, and paranoid, and that the police immediately said things such as they had proof they were there, and unnerved them.

To me, understandable, even if it does not fit the protocol for false confessions. They were being told, NO, what you say we will not accept. Now say something else. Or 30 years in prison.

AK and RS were immediately disliked, immediately set upon as the odd ones out. There was yelling, there was intimidation. This by authority figures at a time of severe stress and confusion.

If that tabloid report posted a page or so back is correct (and it may well not be) and the "translator" repeatedly accused AK of holding MK down while PL raped and murdered her, then I think it's clear what happened:

AK spent two hours insisting she was with RS at his apartment. LE badgered, yelled and head-slapped her and told her that RS had already confessed that AK wasn't there. LE furthermore insists that AK and PL committed the murder together.

By the end of two hours, the "translator" is insisting that AK held MK while PL raped and murdered her, so AK proposes a "compromise." She says she wasn't in the room, but was in the next room while PL was with MK and MK screamed. That way she attempts to appease PLE by telling them only what they insist they already know, without actually placing herself at the exact scene of the crime or even directly accusing PL. No harm, no foul from AK's p.o.v. at the time. (Later, of course, PLE quite conveniently blames her entirely for the false incarceration of PL.)

This is why I said lies from police are like false premises in a syllogism.

LE lies to RS and says they have proof AK committed the murder; they may even lie and say AK has implicated RS.

RS takes those lies as the "given", and invents false testimony that AK left the apartment and told him to lie.

LE then takes RS' false statement and uses it--along with an additional lie that they have proof of PL's involvement--to pressure AK into a false statement that she thinks distances herself from the crime without directly accusing PL.

And finally PL is arrested based on a false statement based on a false statement and a lie based on the original lies of PLE.

Q.E.D. Not!