WARNING:GRAPHIC PHOTOS Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #8

[otto]

Otto, we're both talking about the same thing. You responded to my claim that they weren't making out/groping each other, just cuddling kissing by citing witness claims that they were... cuddling/kissing. I don't know what you're point is other than that maybe you're just agreeing with me.

If you read the linked article, you will find that all that smooching activity between the lovebirds was described as inappropriate by witnesses, not as normal.

 

[Malkmus]

If you read the linked article, you will find that all that smooching activity between the lovebirds was described as inappropriate by witnesses, not as normal.

I don't deny that. All I said was I personally don't find anything incriminating with cuddling/smooching from a couple in their early twenties. I wouldn't do it myself. But I'm 32 years old. What I would have done ten years ago is open for debate, especially if I was in the throws of young love.

 

[otto]

I'm sorry, where did I say I wanted to debate whether she was beaten or not and whether she was deprived of necessities? I listed three things that I think are undeniable when discussing the interrogation. That those on the pro-guilt side sidestep those three things seems to be evasive and the reason is clear.

Knox is convicted of murder, so I'm not sure what pro this or that means at this stage of the process. I don't think I have anything to add to my understanding of Amanda's 2 hours of questioning prior to her confession. She confessed. I am unwilling to make excuses for her decision to confess, nor for her decision to accuse an innocent man of murder and then keep that information secret for a couple of weeks.

 

[otto]

I don't deny that. All I said was I personally don't find anything incriminating with cuddling/smooching from a couple in their early twenties. I wouldn't do it myself. But I'm 32 years old. What I would have done ten years ago is open for debate, especially if I was in the throws of young love.

Sure ... it was inappropriate, but only in the eyes of the people that were there. There seems to be some kind of excuse for everything Amanda has said and done that resulted in her conviction. Does she have to take responsibility for anything?

 

[Malkmus]

Knox is convicted of murder, so I'm not sure what pro this or that means at this stage of the process. I don't think I have anything to add to my understanding of Amanda's 2 hours of questioning prior to her confession. She confessed. I am unwilling to make excuses for her decision to confess, nor for her decision to accuse an innocent man of murder and then keep that information secret for a couple of weeks.

I discuss and acknowledge every aspect of this case. I feel it's imperative in knowing the truth surrounding Meredith's murder. This is where we differ.

 

[otto]

I discuss and acknowledge every aspect of this case. I feel it's imperative in knowing the truth surrounding Meredith's murder. This is where we differ.

I don't think personal remarks have any place in this discussion.

 

[Malkmus]

Sure ... it was inappropriate, but only in the eyes of the people that were there. There seems to be some kind of excuse for everything Amanda has said and done that resulted in her conviction. Does she have to take responsibility for anything?

What exactly should she take responsibility for? I can understand that kissing one's boyfriend outside a crime scene is viewed as inappropriate. Is it inexcusable and clearly indicative of culpability in the murder of her roommate? No. Is it indicative of immaturity, or bad decision making? Absolutely.

 

[Malkmus]

I don't think personal remarks have any place in this discussion.

Maybe you take it personally, and for that I apologize. But it's hard to converse with someone on a public forum regarding crucial elements of a topic when the other person refuses to acknowledge or discuss those elements. It's a bit unfair to those who want to explain their points on the matter. If we can only talk about this and not that, then what's the point of discussing it at all?
If I came to a forum claiming the holocaust was a conspiracy but said certain topics were off limits, such as Auschwitz, then that might raise a problem with the people I'm debating with.

 

[Malkmus]

Knox is convicted of murder, so I'm not sure what pro this or that means at this stage of the process. (snip)

That very well could change, fyi.

and...

pro-guilt, meaning those discussing the case who are convinced of Amanda and Raf's guilt..

 

[otto]

Maybe you take it personally, and for that I apologize. But it's hard to converse with someone on a public forum regarding crucial elements of a topic when the other person refuses to acknowledge or discuss those elements. It's a bit unfair to those who want to explain their points on the matter. If we can only talk about this and not that, then what's the point of discussing it at all?
If I came to a forum claiming the holocaust was a conspiracy but said certain topics were off limits, such as Auschwitz, then that might raise a problem with the people I'm debating with.

Is it really productive to rehash the entire innocence project discussion, coerced statements and debate whether Amanda was forced to confess after 2 hours of questioning on Nov 5? I don't think so. This is not because I refuse to discuss it, but because we have discussed it for weeks on end and it's clear to me that some people will choose to believe that an intelligent, presumably normal person can be coerced in 2 hours, while I choose to believe that it is too incredulous to believe. I cited a recent case in North Carolina where a man that is deemed mentally retarded, with a very low IQ, was able to withstand at least 8 hours of undeniable coercion before he signed a statement by spelling his name incorrectly. He signed his name incorrectly because he was not intelligent enough to spell it correctly. How could a man like that withstand US police interrogation for so much longer than Amanda ... who didn't even understand what was being said for half of the questioning? Do you really see any point in going round and round in this discussion again?

 

[otto]

That very well could change, fyi.

and...

pro-guilt, meaning those discussing the case who are convinced of Amanda and Raf's guilt..

So those that believe that the 11 month trial was valid are somehow "pro-guilt"; proponents of guilt? I am a proponent of the evidence, proponent of justice and proponent of believing in the competence of all those involved in seeking justice for Meredith. I am not a proponent of guilt. I don't view being a proponent of justice as equivalent to being a proponent of guilt, and I don't perceive myself as wanting to see Amanda and Raffaele convicted simply because I want them to be guilty. I would like nothing better than for them to live full, normal lives but, unfortunately, their actions have led to lives of confinement in small concrete boxes.

For the record, I would say that I am pro-justice for Meredith. That is what I support. If Knox and Sollecito were caught in that web, that is not because I want them to be guilty. I am not a proponent of guilt under any circumstances.

 

[Malkmus]

Is it really productive to rehash the entire innocence project discussion, coerced statements and debate whether Amanda was forced to confess after 2 hours of questioning on Nov 5? I don't think so. This is not because I refuse to discuss it, but because we have discussed it for weeks on end and it's clear to me that some people will choose to believe that an intelligent, presumably normal person can be coerced in 2 hours, while I choose to believe that it is too incredulous to believe. I cited a recent case in North Carolina where a man that is deemed mentally retarded, with a very low IQ, was able to withstand at least 8 hours of undeniable coercion before he signed a statement by spelling his name incorrectly. He signed his name incorrectly because he was not intelligent enough to spell it correctly. How could a man like that withstand US police interrogation for so much longer than Amanda ... who didn't even understand what was being said for half of the questioning? Do you really see any point in going round and round in this discussion again?

My post had to do with your misrepresentation of the interrogation. Whenever you refer to it, it is summed up missing the most pertinent parts: namely the text message misinterpretation which is how Patrick was brought into it and the interpreter's story of being traumatized which shows that Amanda at least denied for a while not being there that night. Just because you can cite an occasion where someone else with a lower mental capacity withstood an interrogation for 8 hours has no bearing on how a completely different person will act when the circumstances are very different (different officers, different language, different scenario, different witness).
I'm not saying we should re-discuss the details of the interrogation, but rather that those on the pro-guilt side of this debate stop saying that Amanda simply went in, got bopped on the head and accused Patrick. That is what is disingenuous.

 

[Malkmus]

So those that believe that the 11 month trial was valid are somehow "pro-guilt"; proponents of guilt? I am a proponent of the evidence, proponent of justice and proponent of believing in the competence of all those involved in seeking justice for Meredith. I am not a proponent of guilt. I don't view being a proponent of justice as equivalent to being a proponent of guilt, and I don't perceive myself as wanting to see Amanda and Raffaele convicted simply because I want them to be guilty. I would like nothing better than for them to live full, normal lives but, unfortunately, their actions have led to lives of confinement in small concrete boxes.

For the record, I would say that I am pro-justice for Meredith. That is what I support. If Knox and Sollecito were caught in that web, that is not because I want them to be guilty. I am not a proponent of guilt under any circumstances.

Wow, I think you're taking this way entirely the wrong way. "Pro-guilt" is shorthand for having to write out "Those who believe in the guilt of Amanda and Rafaelle" every time. Other places use the term "guilter" but I know that rubs some the wrong way. I guess I'll have to stick to the longform version as you don't seem to be understanding that it's just an abbreviation.

 

[otto]

Wow, I think you're taking this way entirely the wrong way. "Pro-guilt" is shorthand for having to write out "Those who believe in the guilt of Amanda and Rafaelle" every time. Other places use the term "guilter" but I know that rubs some the wrong way. I guess I'll have to stick to the longform version as you don't seem to be understanding that it's just an abbreviation.

I think perhaps you misunderstood. What I wrote is that I am pro-justice for Meredith. I am not a proponent of guilt under any circumstances. I am a proponent of justice. Pro-justice works as a respectful shorthand, not pro-guilt. The victim is Meredith Kercher, so I see her as the subject of this discussion. Pro-Amanda may be more appropriate for those that want Amanda returned to US soil regardless of her participation in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

 

[otto]

My post had to do with your misrepresentation of the interrogation. Whenever you refer to it, it is summed up missing the most pertinent parts: namely the text message misinterpretation which is how Patrick was brought into it and the interpreter's story of being traumatized which shows that Amanda at least denied for a while not being there that night. Just because you can cite an occasion where someone else with a lower mental capacity withstood an interrogation for 8 hours has no bearing on how a completely different person will act when the circumstances are very different (different officers, different language, different scenario, different witness).
I'm not saying we should re-discuss the details of the interrogation, but rather that those on the pro-guilt side of this debate stop saying that Amanda simply went in, got bopped on the head and accused Patrick. That is what is disingenuous.

We have previously discussed Amanda's 2 hour questioning as a witness prior to her confession (for weeks). Is there anything new to add to the discussion?

 

[ChasingMoxie]

I think perhaps you misunderstood. What I wrote is that I am pro-justice for Meredith. I am not a proponent of guilt under any circumstances. I am a proponent of justice. Pro-justice works as a respectful shorthand, not pro-guilt. The victim is Meredith Kercher, so I see her as the subject of this discussion. Pro-Amanda may be more appropriate for those that want Amanda returned to US soil regardless of her participation in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Everybody in this thread wants justice for Meredith. To imply otherwise is grossly offensive.

 

[Nova]

Knox is convicted of murder, so I'm not sure what pro this or that means at this stage of the process. I don't think I have anything to add to my understanding of Amanda's 2 hours of questioning prior to her confession. She confessed. I am unwilling to make excuses for her decision to confess, nor for her decision to accuse an innocent man of murder and then keep that information secret for a couple of weeks.

Except she did NOT confess. I don't understand how the arguments for AK's guilt keep coming back here. She made one statement that put her in the apartment and said she heard a scream.

To turn that into a confession, you and the prosecutor not only ignore the half of the statement (that relating to PL) that was completely false, you also invent additional details (prank gone wrong, drug-fueled gang rape, argument over chores, etc.) that AK never said, and insert an additional cast member (RS).

And then you go back to what little she DID say and call it a "confession."

 

[Nova]

Everybody in this thread wants justice for Meredith. To imply otherwise is grossly offensive.

Exactly.

 

[otto]

Everybody in this thread wants justice for Meredith. To imply otherwise is grossly offensive.

I hope so. The label of "pro-guilt", regarding the discussion of justice for Meredith, doesn't make sense to me. Those that believe justice has been done are still propronents of justice for Meredith, regardless of where the chips fall. I was a proponent for Justice for Laci Peterson, but I don't see that translating into being a proponent of guilt. Hopefully someone is found guilty in all murder investigations. To want justice for victims of violence does not translate into being pro-guilt.

The term strikes me as having derogatory feel to it, as though the objective is to advocate guilt. Since the subject is Meredith, guilt does not apply. Justice appies, which is what I am advocating, and for which I am a proponent.

 

[otto]

Except she did NOT confess. I don't understand how the arguments for AK's guilt keep coming back here. She made one statement that put her in the apartment and said she heard a scream.

To turn that into a confession, you and the prosecutor not only ignore the half of the statement (that relating to PL) that was completely false, you also invent additional details (prank gone wrong, drug-fueled gang rape, argument over chores, etc.) that AK never said, and insert an additional cast member (RS).

And then you go back to what little she DID say and call it a "confession."

The arguments for Amanda and Raffaele's guilt will "keep coming back" because, as it stands, she is convicted of murder. There is an ongoing appeal, and new information may emerge but, until then, she is guilty - just like Rudy. I have faith in the judicial system in general. Sometimes mistakes are made but, in general, verdicts are correct.

I don't think you'll find statements from me suggesting that three people murdered Meredith over an argument about chores. Personally, I have viewed this as a thrill kill from pretty much the beginning.