Meredith Kercher murdered in Perugia, Amanda Knox convicted #3

[missyjane77]

I applaud you Kaly!

 

[Isabella]

And several of us have seen absolutely nothing resembling proof of guilt. Show it to us, and I'm sure many of us will change our minds.

I have a feeling that if Amanda Knox said on Fox News she had killed Meredith some would still say she was innocent or there was no proof she was guilty or that Migini was forcing her to say it from behind the cameras lol

 

[dgfred]

I did read the rest of the thread, yeah. I saw one person saying she didn't think the people in the CCTV footage were the postal police (even though the postal police acknowledged it was them), someone else saying they thought Bongiorno's calculations were wrong (without saying how), and one person throwing his toys out of the pram and saying it didn't matter anyway and why was such a small thing being discussed and it didn't make them innocent! Oh, and then they all went off on some crazy conspiracy theory about the original poster and another being in some tag team to bring down PMF or something, since they'd both started posting at the same time. Which bit of that showed Bongiorno's theory to be wrong?

It wasn't shown to be wrong in court, either. In her closing, Comodi seemed to drop the prosecution's original claim that the CCTV was fast by 10 or 20 minutes, saying instead that RS called the carabinieri 5 minutes after the postal police arrived. The problem is that time doesn't work either, since if the postal police had arrived at 12:46, RS and AK would have made 4 calls in the following 8 minutes without the police noticing (at 12:47, 12:50, 12:51 and 12:54). The prosecution probably dropped their original theory because Bongiorno had proved it to be wrong, but their new theory is no more logical.

My guess as to why the police originally thought the CCTV was 10-20 minutes fast is that they took Battistelli's word for it that he arrived at 12:35, so when they saw that he appeared on CCTV at 12:48, they assumed the clock must have been at least 10 minutes fast. In other words, they didn't use the CCTV time to verify Battistelli's arrival, they used Battistelli's stated arrival time to verify the CCTV time. For the same reason, when they saw RS's first call to the police was at 12:51 they immediately assumed this was some time after the police got there, because they believed Battistelli without checking if he was right. Almost difficult to believe they would be that dumb. But then again maybe not...

ETA: These are the exact times of the phone calls according to PMF:

12:47:23 - 12:48:51 Amanda calls mother
12:50:34 - 12:51:13 Raffaele calls sister
12:51:40 - 12:54:29 Raffaele calls police, the call is interrupted
12:54.39 - 12:55:36 Raffaele calls police again, Amanda is with him

I have read just about every post on the site... and this point has been shown to be that he did call the police AFTER the postal police were already there in many, many post both before and after what you are posting about.
So if what you claim is true... I guess you are saying the Defense did not do their jobs since they didn't protest enough to sway the jury regarding this issue. If you consider the police dumb, what would the defense be then???
It matters not about the 5 minutes as it was used in general terms... not 'exactly' five minutes, but take it as you may. This is one of the major factors in the police having suspicions about RS and AK... along with the lies.
Why would the defense not shout from the rooftops that the prosecution had it all wrong? You are saying they dropped their initial theory of the calls and even their 'other' theory does not work... but the defense didn't see this too? Come on... they barely argued this point it all it seems when it was a major factor in bringing suspicion on two of the accused.

It is interesting that you have figured it all out about the calls and when they were made... but the defense after several years of investigating it and the evidence around who made what calls when wasn't able to show in court where the police had it all wrong, or at least prove it to the jury.

 

[dgfred]

You don't seem to understand that I'm not trying to change your opinion and that my posts aren't directed at you. I understand your take on it. It's people other than yourself that I am trying to get my message to. Responding to all of my posts isn't going to make me go away, it isn't going to get me to change my mind. The redundancy of it all is a bit unnecessary, but, do your thing. It isn't going to make any of us go away. Amanda and Raf are innocent. I and others have offered proof over and over and over again. It's really a matter of whether you're willing to take it in or not.

Just waiting for the appeals.

Please show one example of your 'proof' that they are innocent. What you have shown is where what the prosecution proved to the jury is thought by you to be wrong, contaminated, made up or ambiguous... not proof. You have shown where you and others have doubt about the evidence, but no proof of where it is wrong. You say it is all circumstancial, but do not give opposing evidence they are innocent... you just keep 'saying' they are.

SG, you and others can NOT give one thing that shows they are innocent, like AK and RS could NOT either. You have doubts about what was used as proof of guilt, but that is not the same as proof they are innocent.

Can they claim/show (with proof) that they were NOT at the crime scene? NO
Can the prosecution show some proof that they were there? YES
Can they give evidence of other actions that night instead of what the prosecution claims? NO
Can the prosecution show evidence that they were not doing what they originally claimed in their 'alibi'? YES

Claiming that LE evidence is tainted, ambiguous, contaminated, made up, or the prosecutor's imagination is NOT the same as showing proof that they are innocent... there is a huge difference.

I hope you are not too disappointed with the appeals... but AK and RS are sure gonna be imo.

 

[missyjane77]

SG, you and others can NOT give one thing that shows they are innocent, like AK and RS could NOT either. You have doubts about what was used as proof of guilt, but that is not the same as proof they are innocent.

Just as you, and others, can't show proof that they are guilty.

 

[missyjane77]

A political conviction in what way? Bearing in mind one of the convicted is Italian and another has lived there practically his whole life?

By the way when you say " we dont know that this wasnt necessarily a political conviction" ..i personally DO know that it wasnt. And as for not knowing WHY the jurors thought she was guilty...again i refer you to the Kerchers statement who said that "if you listen all the evidence there was no other decision to come to".

Just throwing it out there as a possibility. And NO, you do NOT know that it wasn't a political conviction unless you personally know each juror and have asked them and they have sworn to it.

One person found guilty has evidence directly showing his guilty. The other two parties do not; however, they were both tried. Since they were together the whole time and that is pretty undisputed, don't you think it'd be weird to convict one person and not the other? See, it could very well be a political conviction. I'm not saying that's what I think, but it's a real possibility if you just open your mind.

 

[dgfred]

True, but the evidence did prove guilt enough for me, the many judges and the jury. So to be persuaded otherwise would take proof of innocense... which can not be found anywhere from anyone.

 

[missyjane77]

True, but the evidence did prove guilt enough for me, the many judges and the jury. So to be persuaded otherwise would take proof of innocense... which can not be found anywhere from anyone.

And that is your perogative. Some of us believe in innocence until proven guilty (and not necessarily by a jury....we want the evidence to show us the guilt-which it does not in this case).

 

[dgfred]

Just throwing it out there as a possibility. And NO, you do NOT know that it wasn't a political conviction unless you personally know each juror and have asked them and they have sworn to it.

One person found guilty has evidence directly showing his guilty. The other two parties do not; however, they were both tried. Since they were together the whole time and that is pretty undisputed, don't you think it'd be weird to convict one person and not the other? See, it could very well be a political conviction. I'm not saying that's what I think, but it's a real possibility if you just open your mind.

Oh so they threw one of their 'own' into jail (though innocent?) just to get the political conviction of an American (though also innocent?)? Talk about reaching for straws. :waitasec: Not a real possibility open mind or not imo.

 

[dgfred]

And that is your perogative. Some of us believe in innocence until proven guilty (and not necessarily by a jury....we want the evidence to show us the guilt-which it does not in this case).

Funny you should say 'innocent until proven guilty' when that is exactly what happened.

 

[Isabella]

Just throwing it out there as a possibility. And NO, you do NOT know that it wasn't a political conviction unless you personally know each juror and have asked them and they have sworn to it.

One person found guilty has evidence directly showing his guilty. The other two parties do not; however, they were both tried. Since they were together the whole time and that is pretty undisputed, don't you think it'd be weird to convict one person and not the other? See, it could very well be a political conviction. I'm not saying that's what I think, but it's a real possibility if you just open your mind.

Er no...firstly when you say its pretty undisputed they was together according to Raf himself hes not sure he was with her the whole night. Secondly Italy is one of the main allies that America has..so no i dont think it was for political reasons. Thirdly..the simplest thing would have been simply to charge Guede but instead they went for the three..and two especially had supposedly excellent lawyers and STILL couldnt get them off the charges.

 

[Isabella]

And that is your perogative. Some of us believe in innocence until proven guilty (and not necessarily by a jury....we want the evidence to show us the guilt-which it does not in this case).

Did you perhaps miss the verdict where they WAS proven to be guilty in a court of law? The people that mattered in this trial DID see the evidence and it was enough to convince them of there guilt.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Innocence doesn't have to be proven. The burden is ALWAYS on proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That I have doubts doesn't make them innocent but neither does it allow me (yet) to say 'guilty!' I might get there at some point; I might not. I haven't gotten over the edge of 'reasonable doubt.'

 

[dgfred]

Innocence doesn't have to be proven. The burden is ALWAYS on proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That I have doubts doesn't make them innocent but neither does it allow me (yet) to say 'guilty!' I might get there at some point; I might not. I haven't gotten over the edge of 'reasonable doubt.'

I understand your position. Hopefully the motivational report by the court will
clear up much for the ones hoping they are innocent somehow.

 

[missyjane77]

Did you perhaps miss the verdict where they WAS proven to be guilty in a court of law? The people that mattered in this trial DID see the evidence and it was enough to convince them of there guilt.

No, I did not miss the verdict. I, for one, think it's incorrect. I think there is no way that jury was convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt". Unfortunately, they don't have to follow that little tidbit over there! They also could very well have been influenced by RUMORS that were spreading rampant. Make your own conclusions instead of basing it on what "those people" decided. Look at the evidence for yourself and make a decision. Don't just assume that the jury is correct.

 

[dgfred]

Just don't assume that the over 13 judges and the jurors were swayed by the news media and rumors. If you (as a juror) were told to only base your decision on facts of evidence could you do such a thing? We should assume you could after an oath to verify it so... like we are assuming of them.

 

[Isabella]

No, I did not miss the verdict. I, for one, think it's incorrect. I think there is no way that jury was convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt". Unfortunately, they don't have to follow that little tidbit over there! They also could very well have been influenced by RUMORS that were spreading rampant. Make your own conclusions instead of basing it on what "those people" decided. Look at the evidence for yourself and make a decision. Don't just assume that the jury is correct.

You know the way you talk about the Italians is just...wrong. I HAVE based my decisions on the evidence myself and not on what "those people" decided. I thought they was guilty WAY before the verdict was reached so to say that...again is just wrong. YOU may not think the verdict is correct and YOU may not think there is any way they was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt but one of the jurors have said that wasnt the case. For many people..there was never any doubt about the guilt of those accused of this crime and yes...i mean "beyond any reasonable doubt".

One other thing i want to say. The Italians are such lovely people and it sickens me the way they are being maligned in this case because they dared to find a young girl from America guilty of this vile crime.

 

[miley]

I've heard that Amanda's going to be sued by the police for libel/slander for stating in court that she was hit.
YET Patrick says he was beaten up and called "dirty black" by same police. No-one disbelieves him.
This whole thing really stinks.

No its not for stating in court that Amanda was hit.

It is because of the various interviews they have given where they have made what the Italians deem to be libel comments.

Rosa Moline, correct me if I'm wrong, in order for the police to sue, Amanda has to first be found guilty of committing the slander, is that right?
okay, Amanda talked about her interrogation (slapped on the head, etc...) during the pre-trial without a hitch (so to speak), however, when she said it during the (real) trial, Mignini asked that Amanda's declaration be sent to the prosecution's office to be investigated right? well, guess which prosecutor's desk it landed on?

here is something interesting I came across about the conclusion of the investigation
you'll get a kick out of this - if you haven't already...

(ten days ago) Frank Sfarzo's interviewed Comodi:

Q: Who did Amanda slander?
A: Some policeman at the trial.
Q: For the law, slander is when someone presents a lawsuit, a complaint or a request in order to blame someone for a crime that he knows is innocent...
A: (checking the code) Lawsuit, complaint, request... yes.
Q: ...Did Amanda present a lawsuit, a complaint, a request? Did she give a name?
Q: No, but the interpretation...
Q: Did the Supreme Court interpret that even when you just say that by responding to a question you make a slander?
A: Yes, and since the beginning, since the law was made.
Q: Maybe there exists another Supreme Court ruling, maybe more recent and of a higher section, that says the opposite.
A: I don't think so.
Q: So, what did today happen?
A: You know that: she received the notice of conclusion of investigation.
Q: What was done as investigation?
A: Nothing, what should we have done? She did it in front of everyone.
Q: You didn't think you could maybe investigate if what she said was true?
A: And what should we have done, interview the interpreter?
Q: The interpreter and all other witnesses, the suspect, the victims. Run the investigation, you know how to make them.
A: Please... there's nothing to investigate, she did the slander in public. And everybody was already heard at the trial.
Q: So she said that, in the courtroom, and Mignini asked to send the acts to the prosecution office.
A: We asked to send the acts to the prosecution office. He spoke because one has to speak, but we decided together.
Q: And to which prosecutor did the acts arrive?
A: You know that: to me and Mignini.
Q: Just to you and Mingini?
A: Yes, it was sent to us. But if you know that why you ask?
Q: It's particular in this case, I wanted to hear it again. Are you going to press charges?
Q: We'll see.
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-proceedings-against-amanda-knox.html​

"Yes, it was sent to us. But if you know that why you ask?"... lol, there WAS NO investigation... it's just like Tizzle was saying, they waited until right before Mignini's verdict was to be announced before unleashing it to the press/media --- in other words, distract the masses... (amanda was an afterthought)

timing is everything, as of right now, the prosecution can't decide it they are going to charge her, "We'll see," it's like thay are daring amanda to even blink

 

[miley]

To be honest seeing as i wasnt there i dont know that at all. I am aware of what she said but im also aware that she is a liar and so her word means nothing to me sorry.

if amanda is such a liar, why does everyone believe the door was "open" when she first got back to the cottage?

 

[Isabella]

if amanda is such a liar, why does everyone believe the door was "open" when she first got back to the cottage?

Uh whether the door was open or not is irrelevant. I said she was a liar which generally means widespread.

As for the front door there was a problem with it. Because she may have told the truth about one thing does not mean shes not a liar