Meredith Kercher murdered in Perugia, Amanda Knox convicted #3

[Tizzle]

>>snipped<<
As for the contested translation of Raffaelle's statment, we need the analysis of a native speaker. Per Google Translate, "Mia sorella mi ha detto di chiamare il 112, cosa che io ho fatto, ma nel frattempo è arrivata la polizia postale" translates to: Mysister told me to call 112, which I did, but in the meantime the police arrived postal" Which really doesn't make any sense. That is the trouble with translation softwear.

In English, "in the meantime" would generally suggest something that is happening at the same time, that the subject is unaware. I don't think it is possible that the postal police were arriving at the same time Raffaele was making the call. One would not say "but in the meantime" to refer to something happening "soon after". If the translation is accurate, he seems to be engaging in double talk. Not admitting that he called after they arrived but not claiming "he called them and then they arrived", and sort of implying that they arrived, unbeknownst to him, while he was making the call. Now we need someone who knows Italian well, to explain what he really seems to mean.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+the+meantime
in the meantime
the period of time between two things; the period of time between now and when something is supposed to happen. The movie starts at 6:00. In the meantime, let's eat dinner. My flight was at 8:00. In the meantime, I played solitaire.

 

[Tizzle]

What we do know is there isnt a scrap of proof been provided that she was hit or anything else. Until anything IS proved to me its just rumour..or lies putting it simply of a convicted murderer and to be honest..working off of rumours really doesnt help one to make a informed decision IMO.

BBM
LOL, seriously? I would be ashamed to make this statement, really. Rumors are precisely what you have based your opinion of guilt on. I know you don't like it, but it's true. Rumors are exactly what got two innocent people convicted of a crime they DID NOT commit. What a shame.

 

[Tizzle]

*I believe she 'knew' a colored man was there, was already mad at PL and figured RG might not ever be found.

*So what if the police found the text message and said PL must have been there... AK can still deny it and there is absolutely no reason to accuse an innocent man (more than once for sure).

*They were focused because of the text to and from him... as they should have been because of her changing 'alibi'.

*The police more than likely brought up his name first because of the text on AK's phone... and when both RS and her are already under questioning I see no problem with bringing his name up.

*Why does it matter if the police insisted he was involved? What stopped AK from claiming it was ridiculous whether under duress or not? What reason would AK have for claiming her previous 'story' was true in her gift statement
to the prosecutor?

***NO. I do not hold the police responsible for holding a person accused by an eyewitness to murder until dna was returned and that person can show an ironclad alibi for the time in question. Next question please.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

Maybe you could read through this link. Apparently you don't understand what happens when a person is coerced into giving false statements against themselves and/or others. People make false confessions to police much more often that you seem to think or are willing to accept...

 

[missyjane77]

Oh right. Blame everyone else. He was accused of murder, why wouldn't they keep him in jail? By the way, does Italy even have the bond system similar to what US has?

Um, he is suing the police, so yes, he does blame them.

 

[missyjane77]

Logically AK could only deny it if she knew he wasn't there. And the only way she could know for sure he wasn't there is if she was there (at the time of the murder) to say PL wasn't there.

Her 'confession' is convoluted and sounds like something made up to appease someone (the polizia?). If she was going to finger someone black and claim she was in the kitchen with her hands over her ears then why finger PL (who wasn't there) and not RG (who we know for sure WAS there)?

BTW, we know for sure AK was in the apt after the murder. We don't know for sure she was in the apt DURING the murder. The physical evidence doesn't tell us exactly WHEN she was there...only that she was there at some point before the police arrived and we know there is some co-mingled DNA. It also doesn't tell us WHAT she did or how her DNA came to be co-mingled. Could there be an innocent explanation? Perhaps, but I don't know.

The RS knife remains under suspicion so I can't call the results on that definitive.

The bra clasp also remains under suspicion and for good reason.

Just think this bears repeating. :woohoo:

 

[Isabella]

BBM
LOL, seriously? I would be ashamed to make this statement, really. Rumors are precisely what you have based your opinion of guilt on. I know you don't like it, but it's true. Rumors are exactly what got two innocent people convicted of a crime they DID NOT commit. What a shame.

Seriously why try and goad people because they have a differing opinion to yourself? It should be possible to attack the post and not the poster.

However the truth of the matter is you have no idea what i based my opinion of guilt on. I in fact based it on the evidence as presented. Now whether you like it the facts are they WERE convicted based on the EVIDENCE. Now you may not like it but it is what it is..and they were found guilty.

Whats more i cant help thinking right now that the Italians are correct in suing the Knox family for libel because its apparent from reading comments here just how blackened the Police have been made to look on the words of a convicted lieing murderer with no basis at all for the allegations.

 

[missyjane77]

Seriously why try and goad people because they have a differing opinion to yourself? It should be possible to attack the post and not the poster.

However the truth of the matter is you have no idea what i based my opinion of guilt on. I in fact based it on the evidence as presented. Now whether you like it the facts are they WERE convicted based on the EVIDENCE. Now you may not like it but it is what it is..and they were found guilty.

Whats more i cant help thinking right now that the Italians are correct in suing the Knox family for libel because its apparent from reading comments here just how blackened the Police have been made to look on the words of a convicted lieing murderer with no basis at all for the allegations.

Show us the evidence that proves Amanda was in the room and participated in the murder. IT DOESN'T EXIST!

 

[Isabella]

Um, he is suing the police, so yes, he does blame them.

Or maybe he just sees it as a way of making a quick buck since his business apparently failed due to Knox.

Patrick does appear to get on with the Kerchers however. As the verdict was being read he was directly behind Merediths sister and put his hands on her shoulder as the guilty verdict was read out.

 

[Isabella]

Show us the evidence that proves Amanda was in the room and participated in the murder. IT DOESN'T EXIST!

The jury and others in the court room found there was more than enough evidence to show she was in the room. Because you havent seen it thousands of miles away in America it doesnt mean its the wrong verdict.

 

[miley]

Wow! Thanks, miley. :clap:You've done your research! Thanks for all your hard work and the hard work of everyone that are trying to give the innocent a voice. Keep it up! Our efforts don't always fall on deaf ears. Maybe not all, but people are listening and learning the facts, thanks to people like us that aren't afraid to speak out against the obvious injustice that has occured here. The railroad job here is so blatent, I'm almost embarrassed for my fellow human beings that don't see it. I'm confident that their appeals will have a much different (and, sadly, disappointing to some) outcome. Amanda and Raffeale are innocent, there is no other option but for their convictions to be overturned. No other option.

you're too funny tizzle! thanks. Here is what's ironic though...
I was actually searching the early reports for ANYTHING regarding the lamp ---

lol, still NOTHING on the lamp!

 

[missyjane77]

The jury and others in the court room found there was more than enough evidence to show she was in the room. Because you havent seen it thousands of miles away in America it doesnt mean its the wrong verdict.

We don't know that this wasn't necessarily a "political" conviction though. NOTHING I have seen points to Amanda's guilt. Also, we don't know what the jurors thought because their report hasn't been released. Yes, they found her guilty, but how? Why? We don't really know....and we may not ever really know. What someone says isn't necessarily what they think.

 

[Isabella]

We don't know that this wasn't necessarily a "political" conviction though. NOTHING I have seen points to Amanda's guilt. Also, we don't know what the jurors thought because their report hasn't been released. Yes, they found her guilty, but how? Why? We don't really know....and we may not ever really know. What someone says isn't necessarily what they think.

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".

 

[SleuthyGal]

The argument that "the jury heard the evidence and they found them guilty so that must mean they did the crime and are guilty of murder" is circular logic (and thus not very logical). The conclusion doesn't prove the case. If that is how you argue facts of the case then there is no reason to examine the details of any case. A jury came to a conclusion so that's that? As long as a decision was rendered then it absolutely must be the right one?

Not necessarily.

A case is only as strong as the facts and the facts and evidence must be strong enough to withstand scrutiny and 2nd and 3rd looks. Refusal to discuss evidence suggests a lack of understanding of the evidence and/or complete blind faith, neither of which furthers a discussion. Even the judges will give this case another looksee during the appeals process.

 

[Tizzle]

If LE, judges and juries are never wrong and we are to take their words/verdicts as "law" and "final", as is being suggested here, how did O.J. walk free until he fouled up again? How did these innocent people receive guilty verdicts and a prison sentence/death sentence?

http://reason.com/archives/2009/08/17/innocent-man-freed-but-shabby

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/law/20090420/13/2887

http://www.innocent.org.uk/news/index.html

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Just because a guilty verdict is handed down, it does not necessarily mean it is always the correct one. IMO, it was obviously not the correct one in this case.

Why, if it's proven that wrongful convictions DO occur, is it not possible that it is what occured in A&R's convictions? It's rather tiresome to keep seeing phrases like, "The judges and jury believed the evidence proved their guilt, so the verdict must be right!" or "I doubt the judges and jury got it wrong." because it isn't right and they got it wrong. Legal systems can be infested with corruption and faulty detective work, though not all are. It is not right for innocent people to have their young lives stolen from them because of egos. Amanda and Raf are innocent of the crimes they have been convicted of. Bottom line.

 

[Isabella]

The argument that "the jury heard the evidence and they found them guilty so that must mean they did the crime and are guilty of murder" is circular logic (and thus not very logical). The conclusion doesn't prove the case. If that is how you argue facts of the case then there is no reason to examine the details of any case. A jury came to a conclusion so that's that? As long as a decision was rendered then it absolutely must be the right one?

Not necessarily.

A case is only as strong as the facts and the facts and evidence must be strong enough to withstand scrutiny and 2nd and 3rd looks. Refusal to discuss evidence suggests a lack of understanding of the evidence and/or complete blind faith, neither of which furthers a discussion.

Oh i am well aware that juries can make mistakes. However its been said on here many times now. ( by the same few people ) there was no evidence to convict her when the fact is the Jury DID think there was enough evidence to support a conviction.

 

[Isabella]

If LE, judges and juries are never wrong and we are to take their words/verdicts as "law" and "final", as is being suggested here, how did O.J. walk free until he fouled up again? How did these innocent people receive guilty verdicts and a prison sentence/death sentence?

http://reason.com/archives/2009/08/17/innocent-man-freed-but-shabby

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/law/20090420/13/2887

http://www.innocent.org.uk/news/index.html

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Just because a guilty verdict is handed down, it does not necessarily mean it is always the correct one. IMO, it was obviously not the correct one in this case.

Why, if it's proven that wrongful convictions DO occur, is it not possible that it is what occured in A&R's convictions? I just keep seeing phrases like, "The judges and jury believed the evidence proved their guilt, so the verdict must be right!" or "I doubt the judges and jury got it wrong." because it isn't right and they got it wrong. Legal systems can be infested with corruption and faulty detective work, though not all are. It is not right for innocent people to have their young lives stolen from them because of egos. Amanda and Raf are innocent of the crimes they have been convicted of. Bottom line.

Ok fine....show us some PROOF that they are innocent the crimes they was convicted of because in all honesty until you can or the decision is reversed it IS just an opinion and not a fact.

Incidentally if we are going to talk about innocent people having there young lives stolen from them..the fact is..unlike the person they murdered Amanda and Raf still have theres. Unlike Meredith one day they will be walking out of the prison..maybe having children and getting married. Maybe walking there children or grandchildren around Disneyworld or playing on the beach. Meredith will NEVER be able to do that because her life WAS taken from her. SHE is the innocent one here who lost her life because she had the misfortune to move in with Amanda Knox!

 

[Tizzle]

It's really unfortunate, Isabella, that judging by the time of your post you didn't even bother to look over any of the links I provided with information regarding wrongfully convicted individuals and instead 'insta-quoted' my post for a good ol' scolding.

We all know that Meredith lost her life way too young. She was a bright girl with a huge, happy life ahead of her. It's terribly heartbreaking that her life was stolen from her in the way that it was. But that doesn't mean I want innocent people to pay for the crime. Meredith wouldn't either. Unfortunately, nothing can bring Meredith back. Imprisoning innocent people, definitely will not bring her back. What I can do is stand up for innocence.

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.

 

[Isabella]

It's really unfortunate, Isabella, that judging by the time of your post you didn't even bother to look over any of the links I provided with information regarding wrongfully convicted individuals and instead 'insta-quoted' my post for a good ol' scolding.

I didnt need to read them. As I had ALREADY said i am fully aware that people do get wrongfully convicted. It happens all over the world.

We all know that Meredith lost her life way too young. She was a bright girl with a huge, happy life ahead of her. It's terribly heartbreaking that her life was stolen from her in the way that it was. But that doesn't mean I want innocent people to pay for the crime. Meredith wouldn't either. Unfortunately, nothing can bring Meredith back. Imprisoning innocent people, definitely will not bring her back. What I can do is stand up for innocence.



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.

There is nothing to say anything will change in the appeals. Then what?

Something i want to clarify briefly. I personally have seen nothing here resembling proof that those convicted are innocent. Nothing whatsoever. Because anyone here disagrees with evidence as provided in court it doesnt mean its " proof". Furthermore its a discussion board which means people should be able to post contrasting opinions as they see fit.

NO one is trying to make anyone go away. No one is trying to stop anyone from posting there opinions. I do however think people who think Amanda is innocent should stop being so hostile to others though all the time

 

[Kaly99]

Your kidding right? Did you read the next 50 or so post where Bongiorno's theory was shown to be wrong... and also shown to be wrong in court?

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

 

[missyjane77]

I personally have seen nothing here resembling proof that those convicted are innocent. Nothing whatsoever.

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.