Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

Let me make an educated guess. I think they (and I) would never contemplate apologies, but would extend compassion and sympathy to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and their families after they have served a significant part of their sentence, thus after they too had suffered not an equal but a comparable feeling of perpetual loss, and have acknwoledged (Amanda and Raffaele) their responsabilities by telling what happened.

You answer the question as if Amanda and Raffaele will be found guilty again. I asked what Kercher would have to say if Amanda and Raffaele are fully acquitted. With a court decision favoring innocence, there is no reason the Kerchers would wish suffering on the families.

And if Amanda and Raffaele still want to claim inocence, they should be able to give consistent explainations for why they told many false stories, and show they are able to acknowledge and understand what a reliable person would say and should say if involved in an investigation where your roommate was found dead.

OH, what they should have said. Hmm, good question. What did you say when it happened to you?

 

[Amazer]

Amazer,

Why is it wrong to criticize Mr. Kercher but OK to criticize the Mellas family in far less temperate terms, as Machiavelli has done?

If you are honest with yourself, then you'd be aware that some of the people in the innocent camp go beyond 'criticizing' Mr. Kercher. That you continue to avoid this issue by bringing up similar 'criticism' aimed at the Mellas family is rather sad.

 

[moodstream]

I want to add the overall definition that those are not facts. Those are palle, big round lies. A mass of rubbish, crappy lies. All these are false, they are proven lies still usable for people like you to are eager to believe them despite evidence of the contrary.

Amanda Knox prosecutor Giuliano Mignini convicted of ‘abuse of office’

Mignini was convicted by a Florence court of exceeding his powers by tapping the phones of police officers and journalists investigating the still unsolved “Monster of Florence” serial killings

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6999196.ece

Convicted, criminally convicted, of abuse of power - aka corruption.

 

[TomM43]

You know, it is possible to wait until the alleged are actually considered guilty under Italian Law before proceeding with a civil suit against them which just might have the effect of damning the accused with sentiment to the un-sequestered jury. It is also possible to wait until the accused are considered guilty by law before stating publicly that you believe them unequivocally culpable and to suggest that those who think them not are part of a cult causing them pain. ***

It is true that the court of appeal will give the defendants the presumption of innocence in weighing the merits of the appeal. [This is a far greater benefit than they would receive in the US, where the defendant would be not just presumed, but adjudged to be guilty, and the evidence would not be re-weighed, but all inferences from the evidence would be construed in the manner most favorable to the prosecution. Objections to the credibility of a witness would not be considered unless no reasonable person would believe the testimony.]

While the court of appeal will presume them innocent in the appeal process, they have been adjudged guilty of the charges. That is why they are confined and why they had their visitation and various other privileges restricted after the conviction.

I don't know what the basis is for your assertion that the Kercher's could wait until the conclusion of the criminal case to pursue the wrongful death case. In common law countries the statute of limitations begins to run immediately, so plaintiffs have no option to wait since there is zero likelihood that the trial and any appeal (none of which is mandatory in the US, and if sought, only one need be granted) would conclude before the case is time-barred.

Italy permits the cases to be tried together, although I don't know they are required to be. I do have the impression that if a civil action is not filed, the pendancy of the criminal case does not toll the statute, i.e. stop the clock for when the civil case needs to be filed.

Considering that in Italy two appeals need to be completed before a judgment of conviction is considered final, I would be surprised if the Kerchers's right to sue would still exist then.

In terms on final judgments, they won't be guilty until the Court of Cassation rules, and any further lower court proceedings that result have been concluded and any apeals from that have been exhausted. But for now, they have been adjudged guilty. It may be a mere interlocutory judgment, but it is enough of a judgment to keep them where they are.

 

[Dan O.]

I should remind posters here that among the JREF Rules:

8. You may only post a Member's personal information if it is both publicly available and is relevant to the ongoing discussion.​

 

[Mary_H]

Do you not see the difference? Really?

How about the fact that Kercher has lost a daughter for good. AK and RS are responsible unless the appeals are successful. His position should attract sympathy not criticism.

That's the issue, lionking. John Kercher's loss does attract sympathy. There is no need, however, for him to state that Amanda is the murderer before her appeals have run out.

 

[TomM43]

Amanda Knox prosecutor Giuliano Mignini convicted of ‘abuse of office’

Mignini was convicted by a Florence court of exceeding his powers by tapping the phones of police officers and journalists investigating the still unsolved “Monster of Florence” serial killings
***

Convicted, criminally convicted, of abuse of power - aka corruption.

Which set of rules do you want to use? The rule you assert, or the rule espoused by Kaosium just above by which, if applied to Mignini, means he is innocent until there is a final ruling from the court of cassation affirming the conviction?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Amanda Knox prosecutor Giuliano Mignini convicted of ‘abuse of office’

Mignini was convicted by a Florence court of exceeding his powers by tapping the phones of police officers and journalists investigating the still unsolved “Monster of Florence” serial killings

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6999196.ece

Convicted, criminally convicted, of abuse of power - aka corruption.

I'll take the next one: destroying evidence. From the Massei report (P321, or 299 of the pdf translated by the perugiamurderfile team):

"As far as the accused Raffaele Sollecito goes, the Postal Police technical examination was carried out only on his MacBook PRO Apple laptop. Insofar as his other PC, an ASUS L300D, as well as Amanda Knox’s Toshiba serial number 7541811OK and Meredith Kercher’s G4 iBook sustained damage, it was impossible to retrieve data from their respective hard drives."

The damage was sustained in while the computers were in the custody of the police, ergo the police destroyed evidence.

Machiavelli may well not want to talk about the issue at all and just move quietly on, however if he does choose to comment he may well want to argue that this destruction of evidence was purely due to repeated, rank incompetence rather than malice. However doing so would make no difference to the point that the police destroyed relevant evidence, accidentally or otherwise.

 

[Mary_H]

Well, if I believed Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were innocent and wanted to communicate the contents above, at least I wouldn't attempt to maintain I am not offensive. Inoffensive is how Mary H. describes the Knoxs behaviour.

Many people have taken offense at the behavior of the defendants' families. That doesn't mean their behavior has been offensive. As Kaosium put it, the families can't make a case for their children's innocence without defying the prosecutor and the police. Amanda and Raffaele would sit in prison for the next quarter century if no one were allowed to say anything that might be interpreted as offensive by those who would impede others' freedom to speak.

I'm not sure the Knox, Mellas and Sollecito families can be said to be at fault as long as they have never said anything attacking, criticizing or even questioning John Kercher's child.

 

[Mary_H]

But the truth is that the Knox family are attacking. They are the ones who have been in the offensive mode for three years, while the Kerchers were silent, absent from media. How do you see someone is attacking, when he comes out and responds direclty years later?
The overlooking of how the Knox have been attacking on the media front is absurd. How can you miss this front they have been opening towards so many people with its follout and collateral damage, oviously including and involving the Kerchers.

Do you have any examples of this, Machiavelli?

 

[Dan O.]

Which set of rules do you want to use? The rule you assert, or the rule espoused by Kaosium just above by which, if applied to Mignini, means he is innocent until there is a final ruling from the court of cassation affirming the conviction?

I would like to see the rule which allows Mignini to be free while awaiting his appeal applied to Amanda and Raffaele. When can you make this happen?

 

[treehorn]

I'll take the next one...

Why don't you take THIS one: Post# 18266 ? [http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6618330#post6618330]

You've been dodging me for almost 2 full months despite the fact your work schedule appears to be such that you are able to post on an almost daily basis.

You needn't feel threatened by my question - I'm merely trying to assess whether your claims are worth any serious consideration.

 

[Rhea]

And if Amanda and Raffaele still want to claim inocence, they should be able to give consistent explainations for why they told many false stories, and show they are able to acknowledge and understand what a reliable person would say and should say if involved in an investigation where your roommate was found dead.

There are rules for that? And if you don't follow them you land in prison? And it's your own fault then?

Even if somebody acts stupid after a murder happened; if the person is innocent, the police should be capable of detecting that.

There is no law written anywhere; if you behave wrongly after a murder, then it's your own fault to some degree, if you land in prison innocently.

The prosecution has to prove guilt, they didn't manage. They wrongly suspected them at the beginning and they had enough chances to realize it, but refused to acknowledge it.

They were constantly losing evidence they had, or it became weaker and weaker, but never did they challenge their own position, think outside of their box.

For example Raffaele's alleged bloody shoeprints. The call to the police "after" the police arrived, Amanda's Sweatshirt "she's gotten rid of", the luminol footprints that were tested negative for blood. The knife that didn't fit two of the wounds and the bloody imprint …

 

[Rhea]

It is interesting that many people who believe in their guilt see a small chance that both could be innocent. But seem to be quite allright with their detention anyway, as a person should behave differently in a situation like that …

 

[Kaosium]

Now playing:
"All along the Watchtower" Hendrix/Dylan

"There must be some kind of way out of here
Said the joker to the thief
Theres too much confusionI cant get no relief"

Cant help you any further on this.

You have to be kidding me - this is what I've been asking about* and indeed what Rose Montague claims he has responded to, but I don't see the post or the link ?

Alright, now I am completely and utterly lost. I thought you were making a claim that the appeal docs did not support the argument John and Kevin were making about the time of death. I went through them, and it seems to me they do indeed..now I don't know what to say! You've fried my brain!

* from my post that you just quoted ........
Of more relevance perhaps is what the appeal docs are putting forward as the putative ToD - what kind of ranges.

I thought you were hinting that there was something there we were missing. I got the impression subtle innuendos were part of your style.

I'm not sure if you have genuinely misinterpreted the point [which I suspect is the case with Kevin Lowe, Dan O etc] or that you only realise later (when its highlighted) that you have & you then retreat into obfuscation [London John, Rose Montague, Katody Matrass etc]

I plead utter and complete befuddlement now, and I suspect the three you have listed in the latter category were not obfuscating, but just confounded.

You win! I abase myself in surrender! What point did I misinterpret?

- or maybe I have that the wrong way around

"Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra!"


(good luck figuring that one out--you'd have to have seen the episode)

ETA I guess you found that 1.01 post ; Something tells me Randi wont be paying me the million
- some things aren't that unpredictable after all

What I meant there was I was writing that post as you asked me about it, thus when I posted it and refreshed there was your requesting me to go back and answer it, which I hadn't before for the reason I posted. So you can read my mind, but I can't seem to comprehend your posts.

'The fault is doubtless mine'

 

[Matthew Best]

I can't seem to comprehend your posts.

'The fault is doubtless mine'

It's not.

 

[Mary_H]

It's not.

I agree. Don't go there, Kaosium. That way lies crazy.

 

[Kaosium]

Italy permits the cases to be tried together, although I don't know they are required to be. I do have the impression that if a civil action is not filed, the pendancy of the criminal case does not toll the statute, i.e. stop the clock for when the civil case needs to be filed.

Considering that in Italy two appeals need to be completed before a judgment of conviction is considered final, I would be surprised if the Kerchers's right to sue would still exist then.

Thank you for your polite and well-reasoned post. I hope to reply to this and be done with it, as fascinating as this case is, this particular discussion isn't what I'm interested in.

Truthfully I want no part of this facet of the case. I do know that it not necessary to pursue the civil part in a case like this, and it is considered hostile. I was unaware of any statute of limitations, and cannot find where I thought I read it does not have to be done concurrently, but I did find where I read it is definitely considered hostile. I have confidence in that information, but I will not argue it. This whole sleazing of families I find utterly repellent, and as to what I think of who started it, why it happened, and who has done it worse I will keep my own counsel.

I will make the observation that I think Halides' subtle point should be taken into account: the Knox's and Sollecito's also stand to lose their children, they will be kept in a cage for 'life' if they lose the appeals, and I do realize that will probably be amended--but it will be a looooong time, and they will never have the life they could have. Even if acquitted they won't, and damning them with sentiment in a concurrent civil trial at their first trial and then on the eve of their appeal making a public statement like the one in the Mail is aggressive and is likely to be seen as offensive.

I will make another observation that it is possible that due to the resources at another site many here see things that aren't posted here and thus tend to think 'public' the hate spewed on a family that doesn't happen here, it happens on a private website. However seeing many of those people who burn ether effigies of one family protest overmuch about criticism of actions taken by the other family that may have an effect on the lives and freedoms of the other is likely to come across as utterly bizarre.

Peace out

 

[Kaosium]

I agree. Don't go there, Kaosium. That way lies crazy.

Perhaps, but it was fun. It is far better in my mind than many discussions I've been in regarding this issue, and don't think by overusing emoticons I'm losing my mind. They're just pretty pictures.

Going through it all today with Platonov caused me to try and puzzle out the time of death rather than rely on someone more versed in that field and evaluate. It was a learning experience, after all, what do you do when you run into a word like "tanatocronologici" and google just refers you back here or to Italian? I had to look at it and realize it was just three Greek parts, and then it was simple!

 

[Katody Matrass]

Rinaldi didn't make any mistake in counting the circles. You are getting things wrong and inventing as usual.

I'm not inventing anything, although I freely admit I got him mixed up with another ILE's genius. Which only strengthens my point. The more the merrier isn't it?
Rinaldi on the other hand is the one that mistook obvious Rudy's shoeprint for that notorious "woman's shoeprint of Amanda's size". That innocent mistake of his came conveniently at the moment when prosecution was desperately in need of any evidence of Amanda at the murder site. Other Rinaldi's mistakes include the botched "perspective correction" and funky measurements of the bathmat print which incidentally, along with other evidence he saw only on pictures because, you know, he's a pictures man, unlike some defense experts that actually took effort to examine the actual evidence.

The things you say about Mignini are also false. Moreover also accusing 20 people of conspiracy (accusations that we do not call "false") has nothing wrong in it and has nothing to do with his conviction, and his conviction has nothing to do with moral judgement.

Surely accusing 20 innocent people is nothing wrong. Accusing them of satanic cult conspiracy and ritual murders? That only shows what a cordial, down-to-earth, guided by common sense man Mignini is. No way is he a nutjob who needs to be removed from position. After all those satanic cults lurk everywhere, just looking to ritually kill someone.

Yes I know it has nothing to do with his conviction. He was convicted for targeting his "personal enemies" with investigations and illegal wiretaps. Abuse of office and power. Nothing immoral in that, isn't it?

The rest of what you say is on the same level, and defines itself alone to the reader.

Yeah, the rest you'd rather not talk about at all, because you cannot nitpick on it or twist it into something innocent by any sophistry or semantical squirming. ILE's trashing of the crime scene, destroying of evidence, laughable evidence collection technique were all paramounts of proper and professional conduct. And the illegal, unrecorded interrogation was just an all night tea and biscuits party. Telling the arrested girl she has HIV was just an innocent prank.
And if her parents talk about any of this they are hypocrites feeding a media cult, right?