Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #7

[trillian]

I'm going to have to think back to get the context for the comment ... I think that someone suggested that one of the prosecutors was a joke or that people couldn't take him seriously. My response was that it appeared that many people took the prosecutors and judicial system seriously and demonstrated their confidence in the system by cheering when the verdict was announced. I'm assuming that the cheering meant the people of Perugia endorsed the court's decision, and do indeed have faith in the prosecutors ... but it's possible that a soccer game had just ended and the cheering was nothing more than an unfortunate coincidence.

The defense in the OJ case was equally a joke. Mignini is a joke and Cochran was a joke. Remember the suggestion that it was a drug vendetta and the slashed throat was evidence of a "columbian necktie"? Even though there was no real reason or evidence for such a theory? Same thing. People cheered at the OJ verdict. They felt the jury got it right. The jury got it WRONG. Unless you think he was innocent?

I dont mean to derail but perhaps you are too young or not familiar with the OJ case, hence this explanation.

 

[otto]

The defense in the OJ case was equally a joke. Mignini is a joke and Cochran was a joke. Remember the suggestion that it was a drug vendetta and the slashed throat was evidence of a "columbian necktie"? Even though there was no real reason or evidence for such a theory? Same thing. People cheered at the OJ verdict. They felt the jury got it right. The jury got it WRONG. Unless you think he was innocent?

I dont mean to derail but perhaps you are too young or not familiar with the OJ case, hence this explanation.

Should we conclude that the prosecutor in that trial is also a joke that no one could take seriously?

 

[otto]

And some good news: "A gruesome scene in which a half-naked Meredith Kercher screams for her life as she is pinned down and stabbed by her three alleged killers has been dropped from a controversial film to be shown for the first time on Monday."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...er-scene-dropped-from-controversial-film.html

 

[Nova]

Good point. The Italian jurors are probably the type to be heavily influenced by trash magazines and most likely based the verdict on what was published in the newspapers.

What *I* said was that I expect Italians are much like Americans. People are people and, yes, they are influenced by what they read and what their friends and family say.

Trillian's example of the South Central jurors and the O.J. verdict was exactly what I had in mind. (Those jurors WERE sequestered during the trial, but they had already seen and heard volumes of media reports by the time the trial began. The feelings of their neighbors were also quite clear.)

 

[Nova]

I'm going to have to think back to get the context for the comment ... I think that someone suggested that one of the prosecutors was a joke or that people couldn't take him seriously. My response was that it appeared that many people took the prosecutors and judicial system seriously and demonstrated their confidence in the system by cheering when the verdict was announced. I'm assuming that the cheering meant the people of Perugia endorsed the court's decision, and do indeed have faith in the prosecutors ... but it's possible that a soccer game had just ended and the cheering was nothing more than an unfortunate coincidence.

Again, you seem to think the cheering proves the opposite of what it actually proves. What it proves is that communal sentiment in favor of the verdicts was extremely strong and, therefore, the jurors were under some pressure to return guilty verdicts.

Nobody breaks into cheers because they "appreciate" their judicial system. They cheer because they have been incited to very strong emotions about the defendants.

 

[Nova]

Should we conclude that the prosecutor in that trial is also a joke that no one could take seriously?

There were considerable problems with the prosecution of that trial. The Los Angeles County D.A., Gil Garcetti, lost his bid for reelection after that case.

 

[trillian]

Should we conclude that the prosecutor in that trial is also a joke that no one could take seriously?

I didnt say anything about the prosecution. They made some mistakes for sure.
I'm talking about alternate theories without evidence and how they can confuse juries towards wrong verdicts. Then people cheer!! It happened in the OJ case and it happened in Perugia.
The fact the a jury voted and a crowd cheered is NOT evidence that the verdict is correct. Do you agree? Do you think the OJ jury got it right and we should respect the judicial system in that case?

Popular opinion is not evidence. Lets just stick to the facts shall we?

 

[Nova]

The defense in the OJ case was equally a joke. Mignini is a joke and Cochran was a joke. Remember the suggestion that it was a drug vendetta and the slashed throat was evidence of a "columbian necktie"? Even though there was no real reason or evidence for such a theory? Same thing. People cheered at the OJ verdict. They felt the jury got it right. The jury got it WRONG. Unless you think he was innocent?

I dont mean to derail but perhaps you are too young or not familiar with the OJ case, hence this explanation.

In fairness to Cochran, different standards apply to defense attorneys. Columbian necktie or no, Cochran got his client acquitted, as was his job.

 

[Nova]

I didnt say anything about the prosecution. They made some mistakes for sure.
I'm talking about alternate theories without evidence and how they can confuse juries towards wrong verdicts. Then people cheer!! It happened in the OJ case and it happened in Perugia.
The fact the a jury voted and a crowd cheered is NOT evidence that the verdict is correct. Do you agree? Do you think the OJ jury got it right and we should respect the judicial system in that case?

Popular opinion is not evidence. Lets just stick to the facts shall we?

I know this isn't the O.J. thread, and I agree with your point that a crowd cheering a verdict tells us nothing about the accuracy of that verdict.

(But OT: I don't think the Columbian necktie theory had anything to do with the jury's verdict. Rather I think people in South Central are more inclined to believe in massive police conspiracies than those of us who lived in West L.A. And with good reason, given what we now know about the Rampart Division and other, inner-city departments.)

 

[otto]

What *I* said was that I expect Italians are much like Americans. People are people and, yes, they are influenced by what they read and what their friends and family say.

Trillian's example of the South Central jurors and the O.J. verdict was exactly what I had in mind. (Those jurors WERE sequestered during the trial, but they had already seen and heard volumes of media reports by the time the trial began. The feelings of their neighbors were also quite clear.)

I don't think Italians are like Americans, and I don't think many people would agree with that statement. Americans may not take their jury responsibility seriously ... I don't know ... but I don't think it's then reasonable to conclude that no one in the world takes their jury responsibilities seriously.

 

[trillian]

I know this isn't the O.J. thread, and I agree with your point that a crowd cheering a verdict tells us nothing about the accuracy of that verdict.

(But OT: I don't think the Columbian necktie theory had anything to do with the jury's verdict. Rather I think people in South Central are more inclined to believe in massive police conspiracies than those of us who lived in West L.A. And with good reason, given what we now know about the Rampart Division and other, inner-city departments.)

I agree, there was much much more to it but it would take a whole other thread to discuss. I dont like the "The jury agreed and the crowd cheered" reason for the verdict being correct.
Just trying to find out why people think Migninis theories would seem reasonable to any rational human. They are illogical and unsupportable. I'm not getting any good answers. So frustrating!!!

 

[trillian]

In fairness to Cochran, different standards apply to defense attorneys. Columbian necktie or no, Cochran got his client acquitted, as was his job.

Agree. I almost added to my post that he was just doing his job at defense. Prosecution is held to a differnet standard. Or should be. They should be only after truth and justice.

 

[trillian]

And some good news: "A gruesome scene in which a half-naked Meredith Kercher screams for her life as she is pinned down and stabbed by her three alleged killers has been dropped from a controversial film to be shown for the first time on Monday."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...er-scene-dropped-from-controversial-film.html

That is great news that this piece of horrible fiction was removed. I hope most of the violence is cut for the sake of the families.

It will be interesting how they will show any natural or realistic progression from being in a house relaxing with your boyfriend to leading a violent-sex-orgy-murder with a guy you barely know 2 hours later. I'm sure it has to move along very oddly. The screenwriter had a difficult job there.

 

[miley]

So Rudy's sentence was reduced because he cut a deal with the prosecutor, even though that's not allowed,

Not allowed? Since when does Mignini follow the straight and narrow...
illegal phone tapping, abuse of high office, and dereliction of duty, any of this ring a bell? Mignini has been sentenced to a year and 4 months and is out pending appeal. Their forensic scientist and a postal police officer, both lied on the stand... this is just a few, I don't feel like getting into the rest.
I will say, Comodi is looking more and more like Mignini as time passes.

And yes Rudy cut a deal with the prosecutors, (according to Barbie) straight from the horse's mouth...
The way I see it, Mignini and Comodi needed (on record) Rudy to place Sollecito at the murder. Giving Rudy the stiff 30 year sentence gave the prosecution leverage - it makes sense (and it worked)

and even though Rudy was entitled to a reduced sentence because of opting for the fast-track option?

A fast track trial offers certain possible benefits, one being a reduced sentence, however, there are no guarantees/it's not mandatory.

Rudy opted for a fast-track trial for various reasons, hoping for a reduced sentence was one. And he got it... it went from a life sentence down to 30 years. (I've read it a thousand different credible places - google it)

No drugs except marijuana

Right, there were no drugs except marijuana...

... and we all know that doesn't make people lose their memories or falsely confess ... although they could have had the munchies and eaten dinner three or four times on the night of the murder.

Or ate supper, watched a movie and had sex.

 

[otto]

Of course. Rudy and the prosecutors made a secret deal, and then the prosecutor did something to make the judge give the sentence that the prosecutor arranged and so we now have a judge and a prosecutor that made a secret illegal deal (dealing for reduced sentence being a concept of law that occurs in the US and not in Italy) and that's why Rudy's sentence was first reduced to 24 years and then to 16 ... interesting story.

 

[claudicici]

...since the THC levels in hash are a lot higher than in marijuana could that in fact have caused memory loss? especially if they were drinking as well?

 

[otto]

...since the THC levels in hash are a lot higher than in marijuana could that in fact have caused memory loss? especially if they were drinking as well?

Raffaele and Amanda claimed they were doing drugs and drinking alcohol on the night of the murder, but there seems to be some effort to make this fact disappear. Either they were twisted out of shape, or they were not. If they were twisted out of shape, it could account for the alleged memory loss, weak or dishonest answers given to police and ever changing alibis. If they were not, the it really leaves me wondering why Knox lied to police and implicated an innocent man after 2 hours of questioning, alleging "physical and mental abuse for 14 hours. No food, water, no official interpreter." Someone with clear, honest memories doesn't get their facts completely turned around in two hours, especially when there's a language barrier for the first hour.

http://www.king5.com/news/investigators/60680497.html

 

[Nova]

I don't think Italians are like Americans, and I don't think many people would agree with that statement. Americans may not take their jury responsibility seriously ... I don't know ... but I don't think it's then reasonable to conclude that no one in the world takes their jury responsibilities seriously.

So Italians are more like whom, Martians?

In my experience (two trials that went to deliberation plus watching numerous interviews with jurors on TV), most Americans do take jury duty seriously. (At least those that show up for it do.) That doesn't mean they stop being human beings. That doesn't mean they magically become immune to their own prejudices and other human inclinations.

The legal system actually recognizes that there are limits to the information humans can set aside in their minds and, for that very reason, has rules to limit what can be put before a jury.

I'm not saying the Perugia trials erred in this regard. But I don't think any judge or attorney would argue that the rules of evidence are perfect, nor that they always compensate for pre-trial publicity, community pressure or all sorts of other prejudices that human beings hold.

 

[claudicici]

I agree that the only thing that would explain the way Amanda and Rafael acted would be that they really did not remember.
Is there any knowledge or rumors that they knew Rudy before this happened or was he a complete stranger to them?

 

[Nova]

I agree, there was much much more to it but it would take a whole other thread to discuss. I dont like the "The jury agreed and the crowd cheered" reason for the verdict being correct.
Just trying to find out why people think Migninis theories would seem reasonable to any rational human. They are illogical and unsupportable. I'm not getting any good answers. So frustrating!!!

As you can see from my responses, I think cheering crowds are no guarantee that justice was achieved. On the contrary, if anything, cheering crowds are a sign of possible public pressure on jurors.