Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

The question asked was whether you could name a case of a wrongful conviction where you would have been convinced the defendant was innocent in advance of any appeals court reversal. So at what point did you become convinced that Chamberlain was innocent? Was it literally just before the reversal, after the new evidence had been revealed, or was it at the time of her original conviction?

I was convinced she was guilty at the conviction and at the appeal. I was convinced she was not guilty when they found the babies jacket six years later.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Lifetime Movie

Some new stills from the forthcoming movie here - might want to browse them as we wait for some of our friends to return from their 'holiday'


http://eyeprime.blogspot.com/2011/0...n=Feed:+eyeprime+(eyeprime+-+high+def+celebs)

 

[Alt+F4]

Some new stills from the forthcoming movie here - might want to browse them as we wait for some of our friends to return from their 'holiday'

One of the photos shows AK and RS at Meredith's memorial service but there is no evidence that they attended that. They did get Amanda's green coat right though. I wonder if this movie is going to be ridiculous or tragically wrong.

 

[Alt+F4]

The Amanda Knox PR people would do good if they could get Lindy Chamberlain on their team. She's a motivational speaker now, and while she appears to be on the God Squad, she does present well what happened to her:

If I had not been found guilty, I would never have convinced so many people that I was innocent,” she told the congregation. “They would have said: ‘she had a good lawyer’. But God let it go, and let it go, and let it go, until every court in the land had said no, and then the matinee jacket turned up, and that was the Crown’s proof that I was a fanciful liar because it (the matinee jacket) didn’t exist, and there it was.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article7107596.ece

 

[Katody Matrass]

Some new stills from the forthcoming movie here - might want to browse them as we wait for some of our friends to return from their 'holiday'


http://eyeprime.blogspot.com/2011/0...n=Feed:+eyeprime+(eyeprime+-+high+def+celebs)

A movie now? I think it's exploitative and disgusting. Shouldn't they change the names at least and add a disclaimer "all similarity unintentional etc."? Isn't it exposing themselves for lawsuits from both the defendants and Kerchers?

 

[lionking]

The question asked was whether you could name a case of a wrongful conviction where you would have been convinced the defendant was innocent in advance of any appeals court reversal. So at what point did you become convinced that Chamberlain was innocent? Was it literally just before the reversal, after the new evidence had been revealed, or was it at the time of her original conviction?

..

 

[Matthew Best]

..

??

 

[Alt+F4]

A movie now? I think it's exploitative and disgusting. Shouldn't they change the names at least and add a disclaimer "all similarity unintentional etc."? Isn't it exposing themselves for lawsuits from both the defendants and Kerchers?

Yeah, I don't know how this was legally pulled off. Someone suggested that it was okay because it's based on information that is already in the public domain. I've seen no indication that the Kerchers, the Knoxs or anyone else involved with the defense had anything to do with this movie.

Perhaps someone with legal experience could comment. I always thought someone had to "sell their story" to have it made into a movie or book.

 

[komponisto]

I was convinced she was guilty at the conviction and at the appeal. I was convinced she was not guilty when they found the babies jacket six years later.

So, after realizing you had been mistaken, did you update you belief system to enable you to assign a lower probability of guilt in similar circumstances in the future? In other words, did you change your view of how strong the evidence in that case originally was?

 

[snook1]

Yeah, I don't know how this was legally pulled off. Someone suggested that it was okay because it's based on information that is already in the public domain. I've seen no indication that the Kerchers, the Knoxs or anyone else involved with the defense had anything to do with this movie.

Perhaps someone with legal experience could comment. I always thought someone had to "sell their story" to have it made into a movie or book.

Unfortunetely no, that's not how it works. As you've put it - it is in public domain, therefore they can do it. Many movies were made that way, using the real names etc.

 

[lionking]

So, after realizing you had been mistaken, did you update you belief system to enable you to assign a lower probability of guilt in similar circumstances in the future? In other words, did you change your view of how strong the evidence in that case originally was?

The two cases aren't similar.

 

[Malkmus]

The two cases aren't similar.

The second question still applies, regardless.

 

[Malkmus]

One of the photos shows AK and RS at Meredith's memorial service but there is no evidence that they attended that. They did get Amanda's green coat right though. I wonder if this movie is going to be ridiculous or tragically wrong.

I certainly don't plan on watching it. TV movies in general are always crappy with the super rare exception.

 

[Katody Matrass]

The two cases aren't similar.

Not at all. I think you could draw some interesting parallels.

 

[capealadin]

I don't know who Zoda is, but thank you for the kind wishes.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

John Kercher quote:

Interesting excerpt from The Sun Newspaper (saw this at work today and just snipped out the quote from John Kercher). I don't speak highly of the newspaper as it is not a quality one BUT this is a quote verbatim from Mr. Kercher. He was complaining about the new Lifetime Movie due to be released in late February but WHY would he say this? Not impressed tbh.:


''....If these people win their appeals, which I hope they won't...''


WHICH I HOPE THEY WON'T ??!!?? :


Are they not entitled to a fair appeals process then?

 

[lionking]

Interesting excerpt from The Sun Newspaper (saw this at work today and just snipped out the quote from John Kercher). I don't speak highly of the newspaper as it is not a quality one BUT this is a quote verbatim from Mr. Kercher. He was complaining about the new Lifetime Movie due to be released in late February but WHY would he say this? Not impressed tbh.:


''....If these people win their appeals, which I hope they won't...''


WHICH I HOPE THEY WON'T ??!!?? :


Are they not entitled to a fair appeals process then?

How does hoping for something translate to the Kerchers saying that there shouldn't be a fair appeal? How many people hope the convictions are overturned? Are they likewise arguing for an unfair appeals process?

 

[snook1]

How does hoping for something translate to the Kerchers saying that there shouldn't be a fair appeal? How many people hope the convictions are overturned? Are they likewise arguing for an unfair appeals process?

You don't quite get it, do you?
If Amanda and Raffaele wins the appeal it will mean they're innocent, right?

John Kercher suggested they're guilty, just beacuse the first trial ended in conviction. What will he say if the second trial will end with "not guilty" verdict?

 

[Antony]

You don't quite get it, do you?
If Amanda and Raffaele wins the appeal it will mean they're innocent, right?

John Kercher suggested they're guilty, just beacuse the first trial ended in conviction. What will he say if the second trial will end with "not guilty" verdict?

I foresee trouble when (if) the truth comes out. Even though Maresca bears a heavy responsibility, John Kercher seems to have aligned himself very much with the pro-guilt faction. A successful appeal will be a big shock for him.

It will be a big boost for Amanda and Raffaele if the Kercher family can accept that they had nothing to do with the murder - if not, their lawyers may have a delicate situation to handle if the appeal is guided by objectivity rather than the hysteria of the original trial.

 

[RWVBWL]

According to this site, long tern residents must renew their permit every five years by submitting a current photo. A personal visit to the police station does not appear to be required but it may be an option.

ETA: (here): "Renewal is made at the Police Headquarters of the place of residence."

Hi Dan O,.
Thanks for the info! I also asked Frank at Perugia Shock and recieved this reply:
"The police station releases staying permits and passports, so they have pictures of everyone, plus he had already been stopped.
So, when they found him in the database they released that picture."

I am a bit suprised finding this out, since in California a person goes to the their local Federal building for passports, and the DMV or INS for ID's, not their local police station. Every country is different though, I have to remember.

Add in the fact that in the link that I had posted it made mention of Rudy Guede's mugshots taken before the brutal murder of Miss Meredith Kercher, well it gave me the idea that something was amiss, when it appears it was not...

Thanks for your help clarifying this! Take it easy, RWVBWL