Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Rolfe]

I have concluded that Mr Kercher wrote those articles in part because he felt is daughter’s brutal murder had been replaced by the celebrity the media bestowed on Amanda by the media, and then latterly trying to ensure the public knew the person Meredith was, then holding Raffaele and Amanda culpable for her murder. I for one think he is just as entitled to his opinion as Raffaele and Amanda’s parents, 4 or 5 articles since his daughter was murdered hardly seems excessive to me.

I haven't read his articles, however I think articles by the families of murder victims in cases where the judicial process is not yet over (or is in serious doubt) are often counter-productive. Naturally, any parent wants to let the world know what a lovely person their deceased child was. However, such publicity all to often turns into a hate-fest against the assumed perpetrator. That then turns very quickly into an equally impassioned hate-fest against anyone who suggests that the hate-figure might in fact not have committed the crime.

I see it time and time again on TV, when an accused person is acquitted. Faces twisted with hate, screaming that they and their loved one have been denied justice. Where is the justice for anyone in convicting an innocent person? A wrong has been done, of that there is no question. But it's far too easy to let a desire to see the perpetrator pay transform into a desire to see someone pay, and damn the facts.

Now the appeal, it’s not over yet is it? As far as I know this appeal is being prosecuted in a court in Perugia, Italy not on internet forums or the media but a court with a judges and a jury.

Funny ha ha. As I understand the explanations that I've heard of the judicial process, the court case is still underway. The fact that there has been an interim guilty verdict is more of a half-time score. As if everyone had assumed that Andy Murray would be playing in tomorrow's Wimbledon final after the end of the first set of the semi-finals.

So if you don't want to discuss the issue until the judicial process is complete, then go find something else to do until the Supreme Court finding is in. If you do, then snide remarks about the decision being up to the court and the jury apply just as much to you as to anyone else.

Rolfe.

 

[Antony]

Nobody discussing this case should forget that at its very heart is a young woman - Meredith Kercher - who was brutally murdered.

Of course not. Why does this mean that aspects of Meredith's life or personality have any bearing on the question of whether Amanda and Raff had any part in the crime? They don't.

But nothing whatsoever will ever bring her back: what's important now is correctly identifying and punishing any person who was responsible for her death, and for her family and friends to get some form of closure, however poor a substitute that may be for losing Meredith.

I will agree with this part of your post. Everything that needs to be said about Meredith or her family has been said. Those who demand that it be constantly revisited simply show that they do not wish to discuss the facts of the case.

It should go without saying (regrettably it doesn't) that Meredith's death was an awful tragedy, particularly for someone with her whole life in front of her. No family should have to go through what her family have been through. Why should we add to their distress by bringing them unnecessarily into the discussion of the trial?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I haven't read his articles, however I think articles by the families of murder victims in cases where the judicial process is not yet over (or is in serious doubt) are often counter-productive. Naturally, any parent wants to let the world know what a lovely person their deceased child was. However, such publicity all to often turns into a hate-fest against the assumed perpetrator. That then turns very quickly into an equally impassioned hate-fest against anyone who suggests that the hate-figure might in fact not have committed the crime.

I see it time and time again on TV, when an accused person is acquitted. Faces twisted with hate, screaming that they and their loved one have been denied justice. Where is the justice for anyone in convicting an innocent person? A wrong has been done, of that there is no question. But it's far too easy to let a desire to see the perpetrator pay transform into a desire to see someone pay, and damn the facts.




Funny ha ha. As I understand the explanations that I've heard of the judicial process, the court case is still underway. The fact that there has been an interim guilty verdict is more of a half-time score. As if everyone had assumed that Andy Murray would be playing in tomorrow's Wimbledon final after the end of the first set of the semi-finals.

So if you don't want to discuss the issue until the judicial process is complete, then go find something else to do until the Supreme Court finding is in. If you do, then snide remarks about the decision being up to the court and the jury apply just as much to you as to anyone else.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

So if you don't want to discuss the issue until the judicial process is complete, then go find something else to do until the Supreme Court finding is in. If you do, then snide remarks about the decision being up to the court and the jury apply just as much to you as to anyone else.

Thank you for the advice I’ll discuss what has actually taken place in court rather than what is presented in the media, you can do as you please. Given your view why waste your time engaging me in the first place, that is a rhetorical question.

 

[Mary_H]

I have concluded that Mr Kercher wrote those articles in part because he felt is daughter’s brutal murder had been replaced by the celebrity the media bestowed on Amanda by the media, and then latterly trying to ensure the public knew the person Meredith was, then holding Raffaele and Amanda culpable for her murder. I for one think he is just as entitled to his opinion as Raffaele and Amanda’s parents, 4 or 5 articles since his daughter was murdered hardly seems excessive to me.

Now the appeal, it’s not over yet is it? As far as I know this appeal is being prosecuted in a court in Perugia, Italy not on internet forums or the media but a court with a judges and a jury.

Halides1

We keep doing this, I found your response failed to address the murder victim although I understand your focus of this case, we see things very differently your response is in the context of what happened to Amanda, whilst mean is what happened Meredith.

I think I’ll reserve an opinion until it is presented in court, I am suspicious of media, after all how much of what was said about Amanda was accurate?

Does your suspicion extend to what Mr. Kercher wrote about her?

It's more than a little ironic that Mr. Kercher uses his connections and privileges as a journalist to find spaces in the media to publish his criticism of Amanda's celebrity status, when the same media created her celebrity in the first place.

He is certainly entitled to write of his memories of his daughter, as well of as his shock and sadness at her horrible death. He is not entitled to prejudice readers against the defendants.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>I recall attending a...symposium...regarding the capacity of Soviet seapower in the late Eighties. At the time the goal of the USN was a 600 ship fleet, which would have compared to the 1000 or so estimated of the Soviet navy. However we also learned the Soviets had not displayed the seamanship or technical capacity for extensive refueling at sea operations, thus could not cross the Pacific in force with a surface fleet.

As it may occur to you, that meant they couldn't have pulled off a Pearl Harbor, which the Japanese had managed almost fifty years prior. Mind you that was an awesome military achievement, as was turning around and three days later putting the smackdown on the PI as well, but that was 1941!

Being as I knew it had been the frustrated goal of Czars and Commissars since time immemorial to secure a warm-water port for the fleet of all the Russias, and that the Soviets were still working on mastering the 'aircraft carrier,' I couldn't help but wonder who felt threatened by this massive collection of rusty rowboats when they weren't iced in six months out of the year?

Visiting the Soviet Pavilion at Expo '74 in Spokane, WA, made a big impression on me. They did not have the technology to prevent the interior walls from being soaked from top to bottom with condensation. And it was not a greenhouse.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>What I find supprising though when compared to when I 1st joined here at JREF is that the heavy hitters in the pro-guilt community seem to have all withdrawn from debate here. This I find odd, especially as I have seen it written that 1 of the founding moderators on 1 of the PMF websites, brags that she was a state debate champion! And if I recall correctly, she has even posted here before at JREF. Come on Skeptical Bystander, there's a good debate goin' on here, especially since the Appeals Trials are under way.

Why don'tcha come on over and debate, champ?<snip>

She joined us for a while when Bruce wrote about Andrea Vogt on Technorati, Randy. When she wasn't able to make any headway after a few pages of posts, she switched to Plan B, and demanded that Technorati take down the article under threat of legal action. (Usually, if there's something legally wrong with an article, you ask that it be taken down before you spend three days posting on it.)

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Does your suspicion extend to what Mr. Kercher wrote about her?

No.

It's more than a little ironic that Mr. Kercher uses his connections and privileges as a journalist to find spaces in the media to publish his criticism of Amanda's celebrity status, when the same media created her celebrity in the first place.

I see no irony in Mr Kercher’s article’s most fair minded people would see them as a Father writing about his daughter and her murder, in my opinion he has just as much right to talk or write about his point of view as Amanda’s parents.

He is certainly entitled to write of his memories of his daughter, as well of as his shock and sadness at her horrible death. He is not entitled to prejudice readers against the defendants.

Do you have any evidence that Mr Kercher has prejudice readers against Raffaele and Amanda?

 

[Rolfe]

Sorry to be a bore, but is the time of death actually important? I keep being told by people who believe in guilt that it doesn't make any difference. If it doesn't, why are so many people so desperate to show a later time of death?

Rolfe.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

In what way are you dealing with Maresca? In addition, the outcome of this appeal will not change anything for the Kercher family;

I guess you missed the fact that the Kerchers already have a seven figure judgment against Raffaele and Amanda, and are waiting on the outcome of the appeal to loot Raffaele's inheritance.

 

[Rolfe]

I guess you missed the fact that the Kerchers already have a seven figure judgment against Raffaele and Amanda, and are waiting on the outcome of the appeal to loot Raffaele's inheritance.

Mmm, I'd forgotten about that. People who have been made rich beyond most people's wildest dreams because of the death of a loved one can throw up some very peculiar behaviour, I can tell you.

Rolfe.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I guess you missed the fact that the Kerchers already have a seven figure judgment against Raffaele and Amanda, and are waiting on the outcome of the appeal to loot Raffaele's inheritance.

Yes of course, I think your post says more about you than your view of the Kercher’s.

 

[Rolfe]

What I meant to say was, somebody please save me from looking this up, but are they only talking about Raffaele's Y-chromosome haplotype being possibly on that bra catch?

How many distinct y-chromosome haplotypes are there anyway? Is this any better than saying there was type A-positive blood at the scene and the suspect is A-positive?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Yes of course, I think your post says more about you than your view of the Kercher’s.

It must be nice to be so high-minded, I suppose....

Rolfe.

 

[Danceme]

Rolfe, I would have thought the time of death would warrant inclusion in the appeal long before a handful of utterly unconvincing prison inmates contradicting each other at every pass with their testimony.

 

[Danceme]

Does the conversation have to deteriorate to this garbage once again?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

It must be nice to be so high-minded, I suppose....

Rolfe.

I am sure I wouldn’t know.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Does the conversation have to deteriorate to this garbage once again?

Danceme

For some it would appear so. I'm off to bed I need my ugly sleep.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sorry to be a bore, but is the time of death actually important? I keep being told by people who believe in guilt that it doesn't make any difference. If it doesn't, why are so many people so desperate to show a later time of death?

Rolfe.

It's important for three reasons:

Firstly, a ToD before 10pm completely eradicates the testimony of the earwitnesses (of whom Capezzali is the more well-known, and on whom the prosecution were quite reliant) and Curatolo (although he's taken care of his own credibility/veracity all by himself).

Secondly, even the only existing evidence on Knox's/Sollecito's whereabouts is valid (i.e. the interaction with Popovic at 8.40pm and the computer files played at 9.10pm and 9.26pm), a ToD pre-10pm makes it incredibly difficult for either Knox or Sollecito to have been involved in anything remotely approaching the prosecution theory; the prosecution proposed (had to propose) an escalating scenario which involved either some sort of sex game gone wrong or an increasingly-heated argument between Knox and Meredith. Either way, this implies a lengthy preamble to the actual stabbing - a preamble which even the existing evidence suggests wouldn't have time to take place if the ToD was pre-10pm (and impossible if the ToD was pre-9.30pm). If the further alleged computer evidence from Sollecito's laptop is reliable and accurate, then this point is even more strongly reinforced.

Thirdly (but of less importance), it just shows how badly this case was not only argued by the defence in the first trial, but also (more importantly) how badly it was reasoned by Massei. After all, he had the expert testimony in front of him which pretty much instructed him that ToD couldn't possibly have been at 11.45pm, yet he merrily bought the prosecution theory with nary a doubt. And since he did this, it's likely (and in fact provably true) that he made similar massive errors of reasoning elsewhere in his judgement.


OT: A bad long weekend for British sport has just been capped by Haye's loss to Klitschko. We withdraw to lick our sporting wounds......

 

[Mary_H]

No.

I see no irony in Mr Kercher’s article’s most fair minded people would see them as a Father writing about his daughter and her murder, in my opinion he has just as much right to talk or write about his point of view as Amanda’s parents.

The irony is that he does it in the Daily Mail.

Do you have any evidence that Mr Kercher has prejudice readers against Raffaele and Amanda?

He wrote, "Yet to my family she is, unequivocally, culpable. As far as we are concerned, she has been *convicted of taking our precious Meredith’s life in the most hideous and bloody way."

 

[LondonJohn]

She joined us for a while when Bruce wrote about Andrea Vogt on Technorati, Randy. When she wasn't able to make any headway after a few pages of posts, she switched to Plan B, and demanded that Technorati take down the article under threat of legal action. (Usually, if there's something legally wrong with an article, you ask that it be taken down before you spend three days posting on it.)

Oh I remember that curious and brief interlude. How strange it was! And talking of that sort of thing, I wonder whether the UN Head of Global Making-All-Economies-Super-Duper has yet issued his libel writ against BF? I'm going to take an uninformed guess: no.