Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alessi sounds like a scumbag, for sure, but unfortunately most of the people who are in prison and thus in a position to hear what Guede has to say about the matter are likely to be scumbags of one stripe or another. I'm sure the prosecution would have played the same game no matter who appeared in front of them, and will probably take a similar strategy with the rest of the inmate witnesses.

Incidentally, I think someone needs a break.
 
Danceme said:
I really think your outrage over the Kercher's having a lawyer is completely over the top and just goes to show you're incapable of seeing this whole case from any point of view other than as one of Amanda Knox's most impassioned supporters.
You even said they shouldn't have retained one because it isn't required by Italian law, therefore it must have been Mignini's idea. Have you even stopped to consider the overwhelming emotion and confusion the Kercher family must have been feeling when informed their daughter was brutally murdered in another country, one where they didn't understand the language or justice system.
Put yourself in their shoes for a moment and stop with the ludicrous misguided outrage.
Click to expand...

Danceme, at this point in the issue, if you've spent enough time to find out, those who haven't figured out that Raffaele and Amanda are at the very least not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt should be ashamed. I was embarrassed that I ever thought them guilty when I figured it out, and I'd spent a grand total of maybe 100 total hours on this issue.

Today was a perfect example of why they never should have hired a lawyer, and especially Maresca, for such a ludicrous charge on such scant evidence.
 
Kaosium said:
They have thirty years on the on the line here, the better part of the rest of it, do the math. Hell, who knows, Mignini might add more charges on them later in the trial! Amanda faces six more just for telling her side of the story in the last one.

I don't think you're getting something. Instead of visiting police conferences, go find yourself a doctor or two, or three, and ask them just how long it would take for a healthy young woman of about 20 years or so to pass anything to their duodenum from a small-to-moderate meal of pizza considering she'd consumed little or no alcohol in a low stress environment.

Or just look it up in the literature available online, it's not that difficult to find.





What does that have to do with his hearing and ability to speak? What could he possibly gain by testifying against the prosecution? Why would he lie?

Do you honestly believe that there are not many murderers in jail in Italy because of the testimony of people like Alessi? Do you think Maresca brought honor to his clients with that despicable stunt? Do you realize that when Raffaele and Amanda are freed, the Kerchers due to their mindless quest for vengeance against obvious innocents may very well contend for the title of least sympathetic non-criminal families of victims in recent history?

That's where they're headed with me if Maresca shows up in court for them again.
Click to expand...
It goes to the veracity of in this case a witness, rightly or wrongly people would consider Alessi’s character in the context of his past actions and most would regard sexual violence against a teenage girl; bashing in the head of an infant then emotionally denying his involvement in a TV interview then confessing, negatively to say the least. Maresca actions are less of a concern to me compared to what looks like a risky defence strategy of calling these 5 witnesses. With regards to your view of the outcome of the appeal and what may or may not happen if Raffaele and Amanda are acquitted, well let’s see what happens.

It is fair to conclude that the Sollecito and Knox families have every right to defend Raffaele and Amanda within the Italian justice system; therefore and by the same token the Kercher family have every right to pursue justice for their daughters\sisters murder.
 
Matthew Best said:
Incidentally, I think someone needs a break.
Click to expand...

Sorry Matthew, I vented. The lynch mob mentality gets to me sometimes, I can usually keep my cool about it, but that guy Maresca sets me off. The guy is not an idiot, he has to know Raffaele and Amanda had nothing to do with it, the way he jumped up when they wanted to open the knife certainly suggests it.

What do most people actually do in a lynch mob anyway? It only takes a few to do the dirty deed. The rest don't do much, they're there to 'support the victim' I suppose, jeer the crestfallen supporters of the ones being strung up, maybe beat their chests a little with moral superiority. Most probably don't really have a clue whether the one being carried off even did it.

I've about had it with the 'moral superiority' of the lynch mob. :p
 
RoseMontague said:
It does seem to me that the prosecution went to great effort to show this inmate plenty of reason not to speak out. Then Maresca tries to argue that he is speaking out to help his appeal? That makes no sense.

Maybe I was wrong about the defense strategy with these inmates. I wonder if they knew the lengths the prosecution and Maresca would go to in an attempt to keep any dissenting witnesses silent.
Click to expand...

Rose: I never heard what crimes the three/four inmates who have come to verify Alessi's story were convicted of,its very obvious to me that the prosecution fears to hear the truth whoever they are forced to hear it from,if Maresca had held up a placard when ALessi went to testify "how dare you threaten my right to Raffaele Solecito's money" he might have got more respect,
 
Last edited:
Kaosium, I don't think "moral superiority" is limited to one side or the other incidentally.
I do believe the Kercher's had a need for a lawyer, as their advocate, translator, protector, legal educator, whatever. They were foreigners as much as Amanda was and needed someone. I can't see why you have a problem with that. I can understand your animosity toward Maresca but not on whether they should have retained a lawyer or not.
 
What amazes me is the number of people who willingly accept and even back what is blatently obviously one of the most common logical fallacies in the book, the Ad Hominem.

Yes the guy is scum, yes he's a nasty piece of work, but simply writing off what he says because of that is going after the person, and not the argument. Even writing it off because he's been known to lie in the past is just as bad. At most one should be more skeptical of his story and look for further evidence to determine if it has a high chance of being true.

On the other hand, there are people who are happily commiting the fallacy of confirmation bias too. This guy is saying sometyhing that they want to hear and so they are willing to accept it without question. He should be treated skeptically until there is evidence backing him up or reason to accept what he says is true.

Poorly played by both sides, though what the others witnesses have to say will really determine which side has played this ball the worst.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
It goes to the veracity of in this case a witness, rightly or wrongly people would consider Alessi’s character in the context of his past actions and most would regard sexual violence against a teenage girl; bashing in the head of an infant then emotionally denying his involvement in a TV interview then confessing, negatively to say the least. Maresca actions are less of a concern to me compared to what looks like a risky defence strategy of calling these 5 witnesses. With regards to your view of the outcome of the appeal and what may or may not happen if Raffaele and Amanda are acquitted, well let’s see what happens.
Click to expand...

Please. I could care less about Alessi, think it through. How much time did I spend ever discussing him? What set me off was reading through Barbie Nadeau's 'Twits' and old articles and seeing just how easily she buys into any negative 'spin' against Amanda and Raffaele, in this case the whole 'babykiller' thing. Like that has anything to do with whether or not Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the murder. It's just something negative to associate with them, something to 'criticize the defense for' and quite frankly after trying to reconsider Maresca after Kevin Fay offered an alternate view, I was outraged he behaved exactly as I would have expected under my old interpretation.


CoulsdonUK said:
It is fair to conclude that the Sollecito and Knox families have every right to defend Raffaele and Amanda within the Italian justice system; therefore and by the same token the Kercher family have every right to pursue justice for their daughters\sisters murder.
Click to expand...

It's not justice, or even vengeance, otherwise Rudy Guede would have been the primary target--think about it! I don't think it's money either, I think I know what it is, and I wonder if you do too. Level with me Coulsdon, I get so short sometimes with you because I actually think you're a pretty good guy from the limited information available through the ether. Seeing you parrot whatever line emanates from the likes of TJMK saddens me.

Why do you think Maresca was hired to go after Raffaele and Amanda whilst Rudy Guede was ignored?
 
"At most one should be more skeptical of his story and look for further evidence to determine if it has a high chance of being true."

PhantonWolf, I agree. Where are the keys and knife hidden in a wall by Alessi's brother? Who looked, was it covered by anyone in the press, Frank even? No, it wasn't, no search was conducted because everyone, including the defense, knows it's a lie.
 
Last edited:
Danceme said:
Kaosium, I don't think "moral superiority" is limited to one side or the other incidentally.
I do believe the Kercher's had a need for a lawyer, as their advocate, translator, protector, legal educator, whatever. They were foreigners as much as Amanda was and needed someone. I can't see why you have a problem with that. I can understand your animosity toward Maresca but not on whether they should have retained a lawyer or not.
Click to expand...

From my reading it's not that Kaosium has an issue with the Kerchers having a lawyer, his issue seems to entirely be with the specific lawyer they ended up with and his way of doing things. From my reading of things, Maresca repeatedly seems to go for the low blow of the Ad Hominem rather than attacking the arguments that are on the table, and that sort of tactic reflects back, badly, on the Kerchers.
 
Spell it out for us Kaosium. Why was Maresca hired to go after Amanda and Raffaele while leaving Rudy alone? Did this motive exist from day one? And whose motive is it?
 
PhantomWolf, Kaosium posted several times he thinks the Kercher's hiring a lawyer was a mistake and an aggressive act. It's not just the issue with who that lawyer was.

Post#12123 directed at me reiterates that sentiment, just one example.
 
Last edited:
Danceme said:
"At most one should be more skeptical of his story and look for further evidence to determine if it has a high chance of being true."

PhantonWolf, I agree. Where are the keys and knife hidden in a wall by Alessi's brother? Who looked, was it covered by anyone in the press, Frank even? No, it wasn't, no search was conducted because everyone, including the defense, knows it's a lie.
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing Alessi and Luciano Aviello.
 
Kaosium said:
Please. I could care less about Alessi, think it through. How much time did I spend ever discussing him? What set me off was reading through Barbie Nadeau's 'Twits' and old articles and seeing just how easily she buys into any negative 'spin' against Amanda and Raffaele, in this case the whole 'babykiller' thing. Like that has anything to do with whether or not Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the murder. It's just something negative to associate with them, something to 'criticize the defense for' and quite frankly after trying to reconsider Maresca after Kevin Fay offered an alternate view, I was outraged he behaved exactly as I would have expected under my old interpretation.




It's not justice, or even vengeance, otherwise Rudy Guede would have been the primary target--think about it! I don't think it's money either, I think I know what it is, and I wonder if you do too. Level with me Coulsdon, I get so short sometimes with you because I actually think you're a pretty good guy from the limited information available through the ether. Seeing you parrot whatever line emanates from the likes of TJMK saddens me.

Why do you think Maresca was hired to go after Raffaele and Amanda whilst Rudy Guede was ignored?
Click to expand...

(Bolding mine):

Actually, Maresca first filed the civil suit against Rudy with further action to be filed against Amanda and Raffaele should Judge Micheli order them to trial (which he did). I believe the amount of the civil judgement against Rudy was included in his sentencing by Micheli.
 
christianahannah said:
(Bolding mine):

Actually, Maresca first filed the civil suit against Rudy with further action to be filed against Amanda and Raffaele should Judge Micheli order them to trial (which he did). I believe the amount of the civil judgement against Rudy was included in his sentencing by Micheli.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was really the money, Christiana, was Maresca ever in court against Rudy? Did he insist upon more aggravations or contest mitigations? I'm pretty sure all fast track does is lop a third off the top of the sentence when the rest is done, the other factors matter too, otherwise why would they bother with them?

Do you think apologizing for not being the murderer amounts to remorse?
 
Maresca was originally hired to prevent another autopsy and to get Meredith's body released to the family. It is clear to me that his actions indicate the Kercher's had already decided on guilt before the trial even began. Mr. Kercher's article listing the reasons he believed in guilt was telling. He has bought the prosecution case hook, line, and sinking ship.
 
Kaosium said:
Please. I could care less about Alessi, think it through. How much time did I spend ever discussing him? What set me off was reading through Barbie Nadeau's 'Twits' and old articles and seeing just how easily she buys into any negative 'spin' against Amanda and Raffaele, in this case the whole 'babykiller' thing. Like that has anything to do with whether or not Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the murder. It's just something negative to associate with them, something to 'criticize the defense for' and quite frankly after trying to reconsider Maresca after Kevin Fay offered an alternate view, I was outraged he behaved exactly as I would have expected under my old interpretation.




It's not justice, or even vengeance, otherwise Rudy Guede would have been the primary target--think about it! I don't think it's money either, I think I know what it is, and I wonder if you do too. Level with me Coulsdon, I get so short sometimes with you because I actually think you're a pretty good guy from the limited information available through the ether. Seeing you parrot whatever line emanates from the likes of TJMK saddens me.

Why do you think Maresca was hired to go after Raffaele and Amanda whilst Rudy Guede was ignored?
Click to expand...
As far as I know Marseca had no involvement with the police investigation nor was in a position to direct it. Guede opted for a fast track trial thereby pretty much admitting involvement or at least waiving certain rights as a defendant knowing that he would get a one third sentence reduction.

Raffaele and Amanda’s legal team opted for a full trial; again I could be wrong but as part of Guede conviction the court also fined him x Euros which is payable to the various members of the Kercher family. Now in the case of Raffaele and Amanda their judicial appeals have not been exhausted, but I believe if they convicted like Guede they also will be fined; so Marseca is charged with going after anyone who is convicted of murdering Meredith rather than as you suggest going after Raffaele and Amanda.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
As far as I know Marseca had no involvement with the police investigation nor was in a position to direct it. Guede opted for a fast track trial thereby pretty much admitting involvement or at least waiving certain rights as a defendant knowing that he would get a one third sentence reduction.

Raffaele and Amanda’s legal team opted for a full trial; again I could be wrong but as part of Guede conviction the court also fined him x Euros which is payable to the various members of the Kercher family. Now in the case of Raffaele and Amanda their judicial appeals have not been exhausted, but I believe if they convicted like Guede they also will be fined; so Marseca is charged with going after anyone who is convicted of murdering Meredith rather than as you suggest going after Raffaele and Amanda.
Click to expand...

Maresca is actively working on the side of the prosecution and arguing for guilt. That is the reality of the situation, regardless of the motivation behind it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom