Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[lane99]

Then produce them. You can't becaue they don't exist.

Wow, so many outright lies being posted lately...

Yes, your head in the sand denial that, on JREF, Amanda's parents have been called pigs and whoremongers (amongst other slurs) is an outright lie. Not to mention a clumsy and unsophisticated one.

And anyone who, unlike you, has an genuine interest in knowing the truth of this will not need me to tell them how to confirm it for themselves.

 

[Justinian2]

Kevin Lowe:

You really do come out with some amazing stuff!

"That or he's just not as smart and scientifically literate as some of us here."

From the tone of your posts over a period of time, I really do think that you count yourself as one of those who are smarter than the rest. Was it Yogi Bear who had some catchphrase about this?

"He's factually wrong. We can be sure of that. Why he's so wrong is open to speculation if you like,"

Not only do you expect people to take it as given that anyone not agreeing with you is wrong, but you imply that Kercher may know that he is wrong and is after the dosh.

"Mr Kercher's view of the facts is simply wrong. There's no getting around that."

If there were no getting around it, there would have been no guilty verdict and no appeal.

"Maybe the Kercher's honestly believe Raffaele murdered Meredith and that they are entitled to his money." Once again implying that they are after the money and a hint that they don't actually believe in their guilt.

"I don't think than anyone is going to be fooled by your pretended concern."
Oh, I am concerned alright! Add to that "outraged" at the tone of some of the posters here.

"You must live in Alt+F4's world where people happily pay lawyers to sue penniless people for millions of euros purely for the spectacle of it."

I wonder how others view Kevin Lowe's world.

With respect.

Your Gods (they might as well be your gods given the respect that you give them), however, expouse many things like the following:

Page 358 of the Massei Report

Antonio Curatolo, whose declarations have already been established to be reliable, declared that he had noted both the one and the other [i.e. both of them] (whom he already knew, albeit only by sight) at about 21.30 to 22.00 pm on the 1st November in the little square [piazzetta] in front of the University for Foreigners.

On an earlier page:

But the fact that all this was in fact just a simulation, a staging, can be deduced from
further circumstances.

So many deductions and so little evidence. The word deduce appears many times in the Massei report. Too many.

 

[Katody Matrass]

CoulsdonUK wrote


Where do I mention influencing Italy?

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. OTOH I'm glad you're agreeing with me.

 

[lane99]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I don't agree with Mr. Kercher's characterization of the evidence in this case.



I don't really see how 17-year-old DNA evidence in Britain has anything to do with the DNA being "Too Low" or with the possibility of contamination in this case. I also don't agree with the characterization of Stefanoni as an internationally respected scientist.



I don't see that the quantity of pages in the report is really representative of the quality of the report. I find the report lacking in common sense and logic.

As far as finding DNA of Amanda and Meredith in the bathroom shared by Amanda and Meredith, does he not realize that that is to be expected?



Hopefully the appeal court will get around to the computer evidence, suffice it to say this is disputed. I wonder if Mr. Kercher is aware of this?

Knox said she turned her phone off, Raffaele said he did not. Phone companies don't track the turning on and off of phones, just if there were any incoming or outgoing transmissions.



Who was this witness and how credible is the witness and his statements? I wonder if Mr. Kercher is aware of the drug conviction of this witness and the fact that the facts in his statements are in dispute? I am not sure what he is talking about with the "hinted at" reference, maybe he should elaborate on this a bit. I don't agree with the nine times that their alibis changed either. I remember ONE alibi. Nine does sound bad for them though. I wish he had listed the nine alibis.



20, another nice number. If the other 19 are like the ritualistic thing, I wouldn't give them any credibility. Perhaps that one is the most significant or, maybe even this next one.




Wow, I am convinced. How about you?

Bringing back that satanic ritual theory is really bizarre. Mignini must have had a lot of influence there at some point.

And I vaguely remember guilters fighting tooth and nail that there never was any satanic ritual theory in the first place. Hmmm.

 

[bri1]

Bringing back that satanic ritual theory is really bizarre. Mignini must have had a lot of influence there at some point.

And I vaguely remember guilters fighting tooth and nail that there never was any satanic ritual theory in the first place. Hmmm.

I find it really interesting that this is an obsession of Mignini's, and I'm sure it's probably been talked about on this board before, but it brings to mind the 'false memory syndrome' associated with the Satanic ritual abuse scandals in the USA and UK in the 80s and 90s. There's a huge literature around the part that psychoanalysts played in these scandals, basically telling patients (or 'suggesting' to them) that they had been abused in this way and they were repressing their memories of it. This led many vulnerable people (already visiting these psychoanalysts for problems like anxiety and depression) to internalise false memmories of abuse. The problem was that any evidence or testimony that contradicted these 'memories' was due to the cover-up, according to proponents.
Of course, it turned out that the psychoanalysts were deluded, satanic ritual abuse, if it exists at all, is extremely rare. Also, it's not that easy to repress memories, especially extreme ones. Also, it was never a scientific theory, in the sense that there was no evidence (according to proponents) that could falsify the theory.
The circumstances of Amanda's internalised false memories are similar-
Psychoanalyst telling patients that repressed memories of satanic ritual abuse would explain all the troubles and mental symptoms they have suffered in their lives (including nightmares which are a common symptom for those in mental distress) = Interpreter / police telling Amanda that there was hard evidence placing her at the crime scene and that repressed memory due to trauma explained that evidence, as well as the (perfectly natural) symptoms of mental distress Amanda was experiencing.
Patient's not wanting to 'let down' the psychoanalyst who is trying to help them = Amanda wanting to help and not 'let down' the police trying to get justice for Meredith.
Patients are already vulnerable due to seeking out pschological help to begin with = Amanda is frightened, almost alone, in shock, grieving, suffering from lack of sleep, having nightmares.
I wonder how educated Mignini really is about this stuff?

 

[christianahannah]

christianahannah,

Was Rudi charged in a civil suit?

halides1

Yes. A compensatory judgment for damages suffered by the plaintiffs was given by Micheli for payment to each of Meredith's parents and siblings of several million euros total.

ETA: I see that Maya C has linked an article concerning the civil suit. My information is from the Micheli Motivations.

 

[christianahannah]

Yes, your head in the sand denial that, on JREF, Amanda's parents have been called pigs and whoremongers (amongst other slurs) is an outright lie. Not to mention a clumsy and unsophisticated one.

And anyone who, unlike you, has an genuine interest in knowing the truth of this will not need me to tell them how to confirm it for themselves.

I think there has been less name calling here of those directly involved in the case than on any other forum. Perhaps the reason is because this forum is not an advocacy one and both sides are allowed to share their opinions thus giving it some semblance of balance.

I don't think either family needs to be excoriated for standing by their children or need to be ashamed for their feelings of how this case has affected them.

The only fault I had with Amanda's family (that I can recall) was concerning the act of sympathy towards Meredith's death but I did not think them horrible for that neglect - just that they had been given wrong advice.

There may be other areas that I am not familiar with that shows the families in a bad light, however, believing in your child's innocence and being a voice for your murdered child cannot be one of them.

 

[moije2]

court appointed compensation

For the sake of discussion, what do you think should happen in the context of court appointed compensation if Raffaele and Amanda lost both of their appeal?

By the same token do you think Raffaele and Amanda should be able to sue the Italian authorities, newspapers or any individuals who may have slandered them if they won their appeal?

Not sure what you mean by "court appointed compensation". Do you mean the mean the awards given in the civil suits, or are you referring in some manner to the compensation of the attorneys. I pursue this because I am still interested to know if the Kerchers are going out of pocket for the legal expenses involved in the civil suit for damages, or if Maresca is somehow provided by the Italian government. I have not seen a definitive discussion on this topic, although if I missed it I apologize...

For myself, I think that the civil suit by the Kerchers is to be expected as part and parcel of these proceedings. In light of the fact that they believe that the 3 defendants are "culpable", as Mr Kercher stated in his earlier article, one should not criticize them for that, IMO. Whether their belief is reasonable or a captive of the prosecutor is another subject. If their attorney is provided by the state, it is easy to see how they could just go along with the proceedings a little bit easier than if they are having to dig into their own pockets and pay. In that latter case they certainly become at least a little bit more invested in their belief that the defendants are in fact guilty.

As for your question as to whether AK et al should be able to sue if their appeals are successful, certainly yes. And I would think that that possibility is one more thing that could motivate the judges/prosecution to maintain their view re guilt of the defendants even should they have a suspicion that the innocentisti's analysis of the facts is correct. This I would think would fit in with a sort of de facto collusion against them that some have argued.

 

[Justinian2]

I find it really interesting that this is an obsession of Mignini's, and I'm sure it's probably been talked about on this board before, but it brings to mind the 'false memory syndrome' associated with the Satanic ritual abuse scandals in the USA and UK in the 80s and 90s. There's a huge literature around the part that psychoanalysts played in these scandals, basically telling patients (or 'suggesting' to them) that they had been abused in this way and they were repressing their memories of it. This led many vulnerable people (already visiting these psychoanalysts for problems like anxiety and depression) to internalise false memmories of abuse. The problem was that any evidence or testimony that contradicted these 'memories' was due to the cover-up, according to proponents.
Of course, it turned out that the psychoanalysts were deluded, satanic ritual abuse, if it exists at all, is extremely rare. Also, it's not that easy to repress memories, especially extreme ones. Also, it was never a scientific theory, in the sense that there was no evidence (according to proponents) that could falsify the theory.
The circumstances of Amanda's internalised false memories are similar- Psychoanalyst telling patients that repressed memories of satanic ritual abuse would explain all the troubles and mental symptoms they have suffered in their lives (including nightmares which are a common symptom for those in mental distress) = Interpreter / police telling Amanda that there was hard evidence placing her at the crime scene and that repressed memory due to trauma explained that evidence, as well as the (perfectly natural) symptoms of mental distress Amanda was experiencing.
Patient's not wanting to 'let down' the psychoanalyst who is trying to help them = Amanda wanting to help and not 'let down' the police trying to get justice for Meredith.
Patients are already vulnerable due to seeking out pschological help to begin with = Amanda is frightened, almost alone, in shock, grieving, suffering from lack of sleep, having nightmares.
I wonder how educated Mignini really is about this stuff?

If you tell patients that they have lived other lives and ask them to shut their eyes and travel back to the event, most can usually find several sacrifices, murders and other violent deaths. And they can relive them. They will believe, at that moment anyway, that they are recalling a past life event. Sometimes they can even recall things that can be verified in the history books.

Sometimes they will recall a dream as a real past life event or out of body experience.

If you use cannabis, you probably remember all types of stuff. Twenty years ago when I used alcohal heavily, I could wake up and see all types of things in the neither world between sleep and awake.

I know some police officers that consider themselves geniuses, but I really don't think many are qualified to explore the realm of imagined memories.

 

[moije2]

I am a brand new newbie here, and thus haven't contributed here although I have enjoyed reading this thread and others on the case for a while. As background on myself and interest in this case, I sort of fell into reading about this in order to allow myself to sleep at night after initial exposure that suggested that AK was convicted in the court of tabloids and public fantasy about sex and drugs. Of course that evolved and now instead of sleeping I probably lose about a half hour of sleep each night trying to keep up with the postings! I will offer that the extent of knowledge by many of the posters is truly impressive, and I can't imagine having the time to be as informed... However, with that said, allow me ask a question from time to time.

I know that a lot of conversation was generated regarding the challenge to the credibility etc of the super witness Curatolo. The question I have is, for those who are distrusting of the authorities in Perugia, I would have thought that people would have been speculating that the reason he is <now> being jailed is a way for those authorities to make certain that Curatolo gives testimony as favorable to the prosecution as possible. Any thoughts on this?

 

[Justinian2]

I am a brand new newbie here, and thus haven't contributed here although I have enjoyed reading this thread and others on the case for a while. As background on myself and interest in this case, I sort of fell into reading about this in order to allow myself to sleep at night after initial exposure that suggested that AK was convicted in the court of tabloids and public fantasy about sex and drugs. Of course that evolved and now instead of sleeping I probably lose about a half hour of sleep each night trying to keep up with the postings! I will offer that the extent of knowledge by many of the posters is truly impressive, and I can't imagine having the time to be as informed... However, with that said, allow me ask a question from time to time.

I know that a lot of conversation was generated regarding the challenge to the credibility etc of the super witness Curatolo. The question I have is, for those who are distrusting of the authorities in Perugia, I would have thought that people would have been speculating that the reason he is <now> being jailed is a way for those authorities to make certain that Curatolo gives testimony as favorable to the prosecution as possible. Any thoughts on this?[/QUOTE]

Welcome to JREF!

I'm sure someone can answer the question better than I. I only suspect that there is some back story. I'm waiting for a hint as to what it is. I hope it helps the defense.

 

[Danceme]

Regarding civil suit against Rudy Guede:

http://www.komonews.com/news/31289964.html#13002023111492&if_height=282

Thank you to Christiana; you said that much clearer than I could have.

I only posted this to clear up the notion that the family of the victim was somehow motivated by greed. I will once again take my leave.

Thanks to both of you, Maya and Christiana, for clarifying this for those rabid to accuse Mr. Kercher of being in it for the money.

For those who seem to believe Raffaele has untold millions, I think it should be pointed out that his father's use of the term "wealthy" and the monetary "value" of any properties Raffaele inherited has never been quantified. It could mean a worth of several hundred thousand euros or it could mean more. No one here knows.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Thanks to both of you, Maya and Christiana, for clarifying this for those rabid to accuse Mr. Kercher of being in it for the money.

They have clarified nothing. They have merely asserted that the Kerchers have absolutely no interest whatsoever in emptying Raffaele's pockets. The Kerchers are suing Raffaele purely for show, apparently, and the fact that they will in fact get to empty his pockets if they win has never even crossed their minds. Not once.

It's as if losing a family member three years ago makes you a Christ-like figure, doctrinally free of all sin. I wonder if all of the people who lose a family member to homicide become saints as a result? Given that there are hundreds of murders per year in Italy alone there must be many thousands of such people running around.

Sorry people, but everyone involved in this case is a three-dimensional human being with human frailties. Losing a daughter doesn't magically make people stop wanting to get rich quick.

Heck, if a millionaire murdered my daughter damn right I'd get a lawyer and a shovel for all the money I planned to take from him. I'm not stupid. Screw him, he's a murderer, he doesn't deserve it.

It seems to me that this is yet another case study that highlights the moral bankruptcy and tunnel-vision of the guilter doctrine. If I thought Raffaele murdered Meredith, I'd cheer for the Kerchers if they bagged his inheritance. That would be a much better outcome than Raffaele keeping his loot. If the guilter doctrine was actually focused on a good outcome for the victim's family they'd be up all night praying for Raffaele to be a millionaire.

It's not, however. They aren't concerned with the outcomes for the people involved, they're totally focused on creating a fantasy world in which there is no doubt whatsoever that the prosecution was proper. If some inconvenient fact raises the mere possibility of an ulterior motive, that fact must be denied to preserve the purity of the pro-guilt myth.

As I said earlier, it doesn't even matter to these people that the question of whether Raffaele is rich or broke is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether he is guilty or innocent. Rich-Raffaele is exactly as likely or unlikely to be guilty as poor-Raffaele. It makes no difference whatsoever to the one thing a rational human being should be concerned with, which is Raffaele's factual guilt or innocence. Yet the guilters here will argue until they are blue in the face that Raffaele isn't rich... because their allegiance is to a mythical narrative, not to reality and not even to relevance.

 

[Alt+F4]

Losing a daughter doesn't magically make people stop wanting to get rich quick.

As usual, no evidence...just more unproven, disgusting accusations.

There is no evidence that the Kerchers are in this for money. ZERO. You can keep spouting the same lie that RS has money in his own name, yet there is no independent evidence of this. All you have is an Internet blogger saying it.

And btw, the Kerchers didn't loose their daughter, she was murdered by Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito with Amanda Knox being an accessory after the fact and tampering with evidence. Unlike Meredith, today those three are all where they deserve to be.

 

[babycondor]

As usual, no evidence...just more unproven, disgusting accusations.

There is no evidence that the Kerchers are in this for money. ZERO.

Except for their civil suit claiming monetary damages, that is.

And btw, the Kerchers didn't loose their daughter, she was murdered by Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito with Amanda Knox being an accessory after the fact and tampering with evidence. Unlike Meredith, today those three are all where they deserve to be.

Hilited part = "unproven, disgusting accusations."

 

[Kaosium]

I know that a lot of conversation was generated regarding the challenge to the credibility etc of the super witness Curatolo. The question I have is, for those who are distrusting of the authorities in Perugia, I would have thought that people would have been speculating that the reason he is <now> being jailed is a way for those authorities to make certain that Curatolo gives testimony as favorable to the prosecution as possible. Any thoughts on this?

Hello and welcome, Moije!

Does Curatolo really have much credibility left to challenge? It could be they brought him in so he'd be clean and sober for the proceedings, drilling him on his lines so he doesn't bollocks them up again as embarrassingly as last time. It could be pure coincidence and merely the result of relying on testimony from that strata of society.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

As usual, no evidence...just more unproven, disgusting accusations.

Well I certainly wouldn't want to make unproven, disgusting accusations. That would be a terrible thing to do.

There is no evidence that the Kerchers are in this for money. ZERO.

If you don't want money, suing for it is a curious thing to do, is it not? Almost self-contradictory.

You can keep spouting the same lie that RS has money in his own name, yet there is no independent evidence of this. All you have is an Internet blogger saying it.

You've been given three sources for an easily-checkable and specific claim. You can drag your own personal goalposts away if you think it proves something, but for all reasonable people the ball's safely in the net.

And btw, the Kerchers didn't loose their daughter, she was murdered by Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito with Amanda Knox being an accessory after the fact and tampering with evidence. Unlike Meredith, today those three are all where they deserve to be.

Careful there with the unproven, disgusting accusations.

(Actually "unproven" is a bit of an understatement. "Falsified", "ridiculous", "baseless" and/or "scientifically illiterate" would be better).

 

[Justinian2]

Losing a daughter doesn't magically make people stop wanting to get rich quick.

As usual, no evidence...just more unproven, disgusting accusations.

There is no evidence that the Kerchers are in this for money. ZERO. You can keep spouting the same lie that RS has money in his own name, yet there is no independent evidence of this. All you have is an Internet blogger saying it.

I've abandoned legal action before because the defendants didn't have money. Once I abandoned a complaint against a partnership because they were only a paper entity with no assets. Spend $40K to punish someone? Some might, but not me (or my Jewish lawyer/friend)

And btw, the Kerchers didn't loose their daughter, she was murdered by Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito with Amanda Knox being an accessory after the fact and tampering with evidence. Unlike Meredith, today those three are all where they deserve to be

No, they didn't loose their daughter, they lost their daughter. (Sorry for being a smart ....)

Ya she was murdered by Rudy Guede. The only people that deserve jail are Guede, Mignini and his cohorts.

 

[Amazer]

They have clarified nothing. They have merely asserted that the Kerchers have absolutely no interest whatsoever in emptying Raffaele's pockets. The Kerchers are suing Raffaele purely for show, apparently, and the fact that they will in fact get to empty his pockets if they win has never even crossed their minds. Not once.

Lets assume for a moment that RS is indeed independently wealthy, lets also assume that the Kerchers are indeed trying to empty the pockets of RS with this civil lawsuit.
From this it still doesn't follow that the Kerchers do this purely for their own personal 'get rich quick' gain. For all you know they plan to donate it all to charity.