Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CoulsdonUK]

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

Okay at the risk of unleashing another tsunami wave of posts. My view is that Raffaele, Amanda’s families’ and the Kercher family are responding as one would expect from their relative positions of Meredith’s murder. Indeed, I acknowledge they all have a “right” to speak or write about their view from their perspective, therefore I do not believe Mr Kercher prejudice you write of is anymore harmful than Raffaele and Amanda families reasoning’s for why they believe they are innocent.

 

[Chris C]

Mary

Okay at the risk of unleashing another tsunami wave of posts. My view is that Raffaele, Amanda’s families’ and the Kercher family are responding as one would expect from their relative positions of Meredith’s murder. Indeed, I acknowledge they all have a “right” to speak or write about their view from their perspective, therefore I do not believe Mr Kercher prejudice you write of is anymore harmful than Raffaele and Amanda families reasoning’s for why they believe they are innocent.

Yet if the Sollecito/Knox families say anything, they get charged with slander!!!!!!

 

[shuttlt]

I agree, the man clearly believes they are guilty and has believed everything the prosecution told him. It takes time to get rid of hate. Give him time to absorb the facts. The DNA results just came out.

If you wanna blame someone, blame his lawyer. If his lawyer is still saying they are guilty the father will believe it to. Until those that perpetrated this unjust conviction are held accountable for their lies, the father will continue to believe them guilty.

It could also be that they come across as non-specifically guilty to some people, in their manner, their actions, and so forth. Most of the people left on the forum don't regard Amanda and Raffaele in a bad light because of the interrogation. That isn't a universal reaction to it. Some people see lies and evasion. The facts of the case aren't everything, honestly held gut reactions to people are important too. I hope the time of death stuff pans out an satisfies everyone.

 

[shuttlt]

Yet if the Sollecito/Knox families say anything, they get charged with slander!!!!!!

Have the Kerchers said anything slanderous?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

How do you feel about Maresca representing the cops who think this is worthy of prosecution? What in that article do you believe they have the right to possibly jail Amanda's parents for?

Kaosium

The London Times has been subscription only for a while now so I got a 404 response from the link. However, I have no feeling regarding Maresca’s defending various members of Perugia police; I doubt that if Amanda’s parent’s case will ever be heard in court, I would guess that their case will be delayed until say November 2011 or later.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Yet if the Sollecito/Knox families say anything, they get charged with slander!!!!!!

A possible slight exaggeration to be polite; do you have any information that the case against Raffaele’s family and I think telenorba journalist is going ahead anytime soon?

 

[Kaosium]

Mary

Okay at the risk of unleashing another tsunami wave of posts. My view is that Raffaele, Amanda’s families’ and the Kercher family are responding as one would expect from their relative positions of Meredith’s murder. Indeed, I acknowledge they all have a “right” to speak or write about their view from their perspective, therefore I do not believe Mr Kercher prejudice you write of is anymore harmful than Raffaele and Amanda families reasoning’s for why they believe they are innocent.

My point is that Maresca is actively working to punish and silence Amanda and her family--and anyone else--from telling their side of the story. That's not what one would expect, and in fact it is harmful to the truth, justice--and his client.

Let's go back a minute to the opening up of the knife, and Maresca jumping up to object. Especially now that the independent experts have weighed in. The DNA found on the blade of that knife was the only indication it might have been used in the murder. Everything else about it suggested it spent the whole night in the drawer. Opening it up could only really benefit the prosecution, being as if blood was found there attributable to Meredith then that changed everything.

Not finding blood was only of marginal significance. The defense never requested it for that basic reason, the last thing they wanted was the prosecution being able to search for new evidence. There was virtually no downside for the prosecution in that request of the independent experts, and a great deal they could possibly gain, either in that case or anything else that would allow a search for new evidence.

Thus Maresca jumping up to object was very telling in my mind, he knew as well as everyone here that knife had nothing to do with the murder. That knife is the only thing that could have possibly suggested Amanda was in the murder room. The reason I condemn Maresca is it appears to be becoming obvious he is and was more interested in Mignini's interests than he is those of his client. No good can come of the drastic measures he's involved with in attempting to preserve Mignini's conviction, and Maresca will in the future be working with PM Mignini and may never again serve the Kerchers or for that matter any British clients.

So what makes you so sure he's actually serving the interests of his client?

 

[Chris C]

A possible slight exaggeration to be polite; do you have any information that the case against Raffaele’s family and I think telenorba journalist is going ahead anytime soon?

Luca Maori

 

[Chris C]

It could also be that they come across as non-specifically guilty to some people, in their manner, their actions, and so forth. Most of the people left on the forum don't regard Amanda and Raffaele in a bad light because of the interrogation. That isn't a universal reaction to it. Some people see lies and evasion. The facts of the case aren't everything, honestly held gut reactions to people are important too. I hope the time of death stuff pans out an satisfies everyone.

Whose lied more times? The prosecution or the defense?

 

[Chris C]

Have the Kerchers said anything slanderous?

If they have repeated anything the prosecution has said then they have. Afterall Knox's parents repeated what their daughter said in America and was charged. If you want to get technical, If they claim Knox killed meredith, then they have committed a slander if she is found innocent. Thats the thing with these BS slander laws.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium

The London Times has been subscription only for a while now so I got a 404 response from the link. However, I have no feeling regarding Maresca’s defending various members of Perugia police; I doubt that if Amanda’s parent’s case will ever be heard in court, I would guess that their case will be delayed until say November 2011 or later.

The Times is like that sometimes, it just worked for me before I started writing this post. It goes in and out sometimes.

The charge is significant because if whatever in there is actionable, even in their own homes, it suggests anything further could also get them charged. It silences them, and they have every right to speak out on this issue without have to face trumped up charges for doing so.

 

[shuttlt]

Thus Maresca jumping up to object was very telling in my mind, he knew as well as everyone here that knife had nothing to do with the murder. That knife is the only thing that could have possible suggested Amanda was in the murder room. The reason I condemn Maresca is it appears to be becoming obvious he is and was more interested in Mignini's interests than he is those of his client. No good can come of the drastic measures he's involved with in attempting to preserve Mignini's conviction, and Maresca will in the future be working with PM Mignini and may never again serve the Kerchers or for that matter any British clients.

Personally I think people are altogether too ready to string together elaborate motives based on their personal hunches.

 

[Kaosium]

If they have repeated anything the prosecution has said then they have. Afterall Knox's parents repeated what their daughter said in America and was charged. If you want to get technical, If they claim Knox killed meredith, then they have committed a slander if she is found innocent. Thats the thing with these BS slander laws.

I'm with you on the slander laws, frankly I hope the Knox's lose their case against Lifetime. It's the same thing to me, and it encourages this byzantine court system in thinking they can regulate speech around the globe and even on the internet. The Brits can have their laws being as they live there and are apparently happy with them, but I don't see them trying to export them across the pond.

However, thinking like someone who feels differently than I do, I wonder if that laundry list of false evidence could be construed as libel? If I remember right, there's things on there that weren't presented in court, they were just the sorts of invention one sees from the likes of Harry Rag. I wonder if in Britain publishing false evidence against someone is considered libel--or slander--or whatever it is officially called?

 

[shuttlt]

Whose lied more times? The prosecution or the defense?

I fail to see how that relates to my post. I also don't think there is a calculus for lies that would allow us to agree on a number.

 

[Kaosium]

Personally I think people are altogether too ready to string together elaborate motives based on their personal hunches.

Very well then, explain why the representative in 'a search for the truth' would object to opening up the knife. How does that possibly serve the 'truth' as opposed to attempting to conceal it?

 

[Chris C]

I fail to see how that relates to my post. I also don't think there is a calculus for lies that would allow us to agree on a number.

You said, "some people see lies and evasion". If people think they are guilty because of lies and evasions. Then shouldn't they view the prosecutions case in the same standard.

 

[shuttlt]

If they have repeated anything the prosecution has said then they have.

You exaggerate a little. In any case, they haven't said that much... far less than Knox's family. I don't recall well enough what they've said. Not that it matters.

Afterall Knox's parents repeated what their daughter said in America and was charged. If you want to get technical, If they claim Knox killed meredith, then they have committed a slander if she is found innocent. Thats the thing with these BS slander laws.

I'd have to defer to a lawyer to tell me if either, both or neither would normally count as libel. I did a quick search and I can't find any quotes from the Kerchers explicitly saying that Knox is a murderer.

 

[shuttlt]

You said, "some people see lies and evasion". If people think they are guilty because of lies and evasions. Then shouldn't they view the prosecutions case in the same standard.

Well, firstly if you think person A is a liar, discovering that person B is a liar doesn't necessarily change your judgment about person A. Secondly, the prosecution isn't lying about their involvement in his daughters murder. Presumably this difference would be significant from Mr Kerchers perspective. Thirdly, he may not believe that the prosecution are liars. Finally, saying how people should feel is silly. It is clearly and objectively the case that people feel Knox is a liar based on her statements, actions, manner and so on. Saying that people shouldn't feel that is beside the point, the fact is that they do.

 

[Kaosium]

You exaggerate a little. In any case, they haven't said that much... far less than Knox's family. I don't recall well enough what they've said. Not that it matters.

The Times link to the article that got the Knox's charged that Maresca is the lawyer against them in court.

Do you not think there is a difference between defending a person presumed innocent and condemning them? Has the defense taken any actions outside attempting to defend their own, and nothing offensive against the one trying to take a meaningful life away from their children?

I'd have to defer to a lawyer to tell me if either, both or neither would normally count as libel. I did a quick search and I can't find any quotes from the Kerchers explicitly saying that Knox is a murderer.

"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."

Incidentally she hasn't been convicted as I'm sure you know.

At any rate my truck is with Maresca, not the Kerchers. He's the one who's supposed to know the case and advise his clients. I think from the moment he hugged Mignini in celebration when Stefanoni gave the positive result for the two dubious DNA items he'd publicly revealed who and what was important to him.

 

[shuttlt]

Very well then, explain why the representative in 'a search for the truth' would object to opening up the knife. How does that possibly serve the 'truth' as opposed to attempting to conceal it?

I'm not a mindreader, so I don't know. There may be many reasons. Here's one off the top of my head.

He doesn't expect there to be blood found. He may or may not believe the knife was involved. He does believe they are guilty. He believes that opening the knife and finding nothing will reduce the likelihood of Raffaele and Amanda being convicted. Since the conviction of the people who killed Meredith is higher on the list of priorities of the people he represents than finding out whether there is blood in the knife, he takes the actions he does.