Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[otto]

otto,

I was obviously not referring to interrogation tactics. The false information I had in mind (the bleach receipt business, the Harry Potter book, the supposedly missing clothing, the supposedly clear CCTV images, the pink bathroom photo, etc.) were primarily, perhaps entirely released after Knox and Sollecito were in custody. At this point ILE had no business releasing information about them, let alone false information.

Italy is certainly not as liberal as Florida in terms of making information available to the public, but it seems that some information is available at different stages of a trial. When you refer to the pink bathroom photo, how was that false? Surely no one thought that pink powder was blood! Prosecutors all over the world will release any information they deem useful in gathering information at any stage of an investigation. The information they release does not have to be factual. Reporters should check facts before running with a story. Reporters should know this.

 

[wasnt_me]

No, the prosecution agreed that the disco buses weren't running, but have maintained that the local transport and tour buses were.

It is 'possible' that Curatolo is confusing some details from different nights, however, one of those details is not having seen Amanda and Raffaele together in the park, since by their own admission they had never gone into the park together on any other night.

And actually, if a witness misremembers a detail or two incorrectly, that is not a reason to reject their testimony and in fact judges will often brief juries on that very thing. This is because it is a human fact that people may confuse certain small details. What is the overiding requirement is that their key elements are correct and that the court finds them convincing.

And let it be so with AK and RS, who have also remembered incorrectly. Doesn't make them repeated liars. I have already granted that they have told a couple lies, but remembering the TOD (TIME OF DINNER) shouldn't be included, if other witnesses are granted the same latitude for not remembering some things.

 

[wasnt_me]

No, the didn't simply do that. And Raffaele was not exonerated in regard to the shoes (although, exonerated is not quite the right word...given the benefit of the doubt) due to his family counting the rings of the shoes, contrary to popular myth. It was actually a combination of the report by the criminal investigators, the finding of a certain shoe box at Guede's apartment combined with Guede turning around and saying the shoe print was probably his.

This is ironic that RG is believed, in culimination of other evidence, about the shoes, but not so about the TOD. Each side of the debate chooses if and when to believe RG. What's strange is that both sides of the debate believe him about the shoes, but neither about him having a date. The two sides of the debate do not agree that the tells the truth about TOD.

I find that interesting, but of course RG, the murderer, can't tell the truth about everything. In fact his associates called him a known habitual liar.

 

[Malkmus]

Italy is certainly not as liberal as Florida in terms of making information available to the public, but it seems that some information is available at different stages of a trial. When you refer to the pink bathroom photo, how was that false? Surely no one thought that pink powder was blood! Prosecutors all over the world will release any information they deem useful in gathering information at any stage of an investigation. The information they release does not have to be factual. Reporters should check facts before running with a story. Reporters should know this.

Read this, Otto:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-scene-reveal-apartment-bloodbath-horror.html

Chilling pictures of Meredith murder scene reveal apartment bloodbath horror

"This is the grim, blood-soaked scene inside the Italian apartment where British student Meredith Kercher was sexually assaulted and brutally murdered.
In chilling new photographs released by Italian police today, the full scale of the horror that confronted police when they entered the apartment in Perugia becomes clear."

 

[otto]

Read this, Otto:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-scene-reveal-apartment-bloodbath-horror.html



"This is the grim, blood-soaked scene inside the Italian apartment where British student Meredith Kercher was sexually assaulted and brutally murdered.
In chilling new photographs released by Italian police today, the full scale of the horror that confronted police when they entered the apartment in Perugia becomes clear."

Coming from the Dailymail, I'm surprised they didn't say that a pink-blooded alien exploded in the bathroom. It's a tabloid. The prosecutor's office is not responsible for tabloid fiction.

 

[Malkmus]

Coming from the Dailymail, I'm surprised they didn't say that a pink-blooded alien exploded in the bathroom. It's a tabloid. The prosecutor's office is not responsible for tabloid fiction.

Otto, are you saying all the dailymail's readers knew that wasn't blood? I can't say that I would have thought about it twice if I didn't know about the case.

 

[otto]

Otto, are you saying all the dailymail's readers knew that wasn't blood? I can't say that I would have thought about it twice if I didn't know about the case.

I think everyone has a responsibility to consider the validity of the source before they believe what they read. That has always been true; before and after the invention of the internet. Today, people have to be so much more careful about the validity of the source given that we have everything from cooks pretending to be crime analysts to lawyer pretending they're journalists.

 

[ziggy]

I thought it was blood when I saw it. That was way before I started reading anything on it.

Sure you may want to verify what you've seen and read before you take it to heart, but you can't argue that the intent was to promulgate a mis-truth about a bloody scene; otherwise, they would not have used that picture. It's called an inference and it's exactly what they wanted people to do - infer that it would have been impossible to NOT notice blood. They misinformed the public about Amanda period.

 

[Malkmus]

I think everyone has a responsibility to consider the validity of the source before they believe what they read. That has always been true; before and after the invention of the internet. Today, people have to be so much more careful about the validity of the source given that we have everything from cooks pretending to be crime analysts to lawyer pretending they're journalists.

Let's be honest here, what you're saying has nothing to do with the question you asked about the bathroom. I answered with a citation showing that it was presented in the press as Chris claimed. I believe his point stands. The majority of rubbish published about this case was in tabloids, so not sure what difference this one makes.

 

[otto]

I thought it was blood when I saw it. That was way before I started reading anything on it.

Sure you may want to verify what you've seen and read before you take it to heart, but you can't argue that the intent was to promulgate a mis-truth about a bloody scene; otherwise, they would not have used that picture. It's called an inference and it's exactly what they wanted people to do - infer that it would have been impossible to NOT notice blood. They misinformed the public about Amanda period.

I really don't think that you can blame the prosecutor's office in Italy for a tabloid story in the UK. It's always a good idea to check the validity of the source before believing what you read. I hear that the Nat'l Enquirer carries some whopper stories too ... but ... does anyone really believe what they read?

 

[Malkmus]

I really don't think that you can blame the prosecutor's office in Italy for a tabloid story in the UK. It's always a good idea to check the validity of the source before believing what you read. I hear that the Nat'l Enquirer carries some whopper stories too ... but ... does anyone really believe what they read?

Otto, Chris made no mention of the prosecutor, he said ILE as did the article I cited.

 

[otto]

Let's be honest here, what you're saying has nothing to do with the question you asked about the bathroom. I answered with a citation showing that it was presented in the press as Chris claimed. I believe his point stands. The majority of rubbish published about this case was in tabloids, so not sure what difference this one makes.

Linking a UK tabloid rag story about exploding pink aliens, or whatever the story was about, and suggesting that now the prosecutor's office in Italy has propagated false information simply doesn't work in terms of proving anything except that tabloids publish really crazy stuff.

 

[otto]

Otto, Chris made no mention of the prosecutor, he said ILE as did the article I cited.

What did the Carabinieri do to cause the UK tabloid to make up a story to go with the picture?

 

[ziggy]

I really don't think that you can blame the prosecutor's office in Italy for a tabloid story in the UK. It's always a good idea to check the validity of the source before believing what you read. I hear that the Nat'l Enquirer carries some whopper stories too ... but ... does anyone really believe what they read?

Be careful there because The Enquirer has been deadly accurate - gossipy as it seems they've scooped some major news organizations...so yes, people are tending to believe the tabloids more and more as the tabloids tend to steer away from alien babies and perform some actual dirt digging.

I don't know...why did they release that picture? Did they try to correct the story? Aren't they interested in the truth?

 

[Allusonz]

Linking a UK tabloid rag story about exploding pink aliens, or whatever the story was about, and suggesting that now the prosecutor's office in Italy has propagated false information simply doesn't work in terms of proving anything except that tabloids publish really crazy stuff.

The bottom line is this photo was leaked by PLE without explanation. To an ordinary individual this appears as blood when in fact it is simply the chemical used

The question that should be asked is why was so much information leaked by PLE, by whom, and should the individual/s be brought up on charges.

After reviewing an interview with AK's mother and stepfather, they indicated during that interview that legal options would be pursued after she is set free

 

[Allusonz]

I really don't think that you can blame the prosecutor's office in Italy for a tabloid story in the UK. It's always a good idea to check the validity of the source before believing what you read. I hear that the Nat'l Enquirer carries some whopper stories too ... but ... does anyone really believe what they read?

When the prosecutor is the one in charge of the investigation as he indicated he was in the CNN interview yes he is fully responsible for the actions of the people under him.

ETA Just as I am responsible for the people in my employ and the various government agencies we deal with. It ultimately is my neck on the line if they breach any laws, acts, etc etc etc

 

[otto]

The bottom line is this photo was leaked by PLE without explanation. To an ordinary individual this appears as blood when in fact it is simply the chemical used

The question that should be asked is why was so much information leaked by PLE, by whom, and should the individual/s be brought up on charges.

After reviewing an interview with AK's mother and stepfather, they indicated during that interview that legal options would be pursued after she is set free

I don't know any ordinary people would look at a picture of pink something in a room and think it's blood ... or whatever people imagined it was. Seriously, why would anyone read a tabloid and think that it had the inside scoop on secret information from the prosecutor's office in a foreign country?

Like I said, the prosecutor's office can release true and false information during a criminal investigation if they think that it may lead to new information. Leaking that picture obviously gave everyone new information: tabloids do not report facts.

 

[Allusonz]

I think everyone has a responsibility to consider the validity of the source before they believe what they read. That has always been true; before and after the invention of the internet. Today, people have to be so much more careful about the validity of the source given that we have everything from cooks pretending to be crime analysts to lawyer pretending they're journalists.

Then in the same vein everyone would have the responsibility of retracting information that has been proven to be false rather than continuing to spread it

 

[Malkmus]

Linking a UK tabloid rag story about exploding pink aliens, or whatever the story was about, and suggesting that now the prosecutor's office in Italy has propagated false information simply doesn't work in terms of proving anything except that tabloids publish really crazy stuff.

1. It shows ILE gave crime scene photos to the press, one of which was very misleading.

2. It was ILE not the prosecutor's office, as you keep saying.

3. It proves Chris's point, and answers your question from a few posts up.

 

[Allusonz]

I don't know any ordinary people would look at a picture of pink something in a room and think it's blood ... or whatever people imagined it was. Seriously, why would anyone read a tabloid and think that it had the inside scoop on secret information from the prosecutor's office in a foreign country?

Like I said, the prosecutor's office can release true and false information during a criminal investigation if they think that it may lead to new information. Leaking that picture obviously gave everyone new information: tabloids do not report facts.

Explain to me then how so many people believed this to be blood during the initial days? No one can simply as it is a matter of perception but a perception that should never of been allowed to occur