Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
bolint said:
Phantomwolf wrote:



Well, as long as Raffaele is exercising his right to silence, basicallly nothing.

The absolute minimum is two independent, coherent and detailed account of what they were doing that night. Without many "don't remember"-s.
Click to expand...

How coherent and detailed an account of a night in with your girlfriend/boyfriend do you think you could give four years after the event, even if you weren't stoned at the time?

If you happen to have a girlfriend/boyfriend that you have been with for four years or more you could even do an experiment. Pick a very memorable thing that happened around four years ago, and then each of you totally separately write up exactly what you both did the night before that event.

If you differ on any relevant detail, you're murderers. ;)
 
CoulsdonUK said:
It is strange how some posters passionately argue that Raffaele and Amanda’s parents have a right to speak out about the case as they see it, but somehow when Mr Kercher does the same thing it’s wrong, should anyone really be surprised that he believes in the prosecution’s case is this unusual in some way?
Click to expand...

Everyone can say what they want. But you are falsely suggesting that there is a moral equivalency here. The difference between Kercher and the Knox/Sollecito families, is that Kercher is wrong.

Is it "unusual" that he is wrong? I don't know. And it doesn't matter. Wrong is wrong. And, the wrong in this case is contributing to the lengthy incarceration of two innocent people--a very serious kind of harm.

It would be nice if somebody in Coulsdan, UK had sat down with Kercher and explained this to him, since he seems to have been duped by his lawyer.
 
RoseMontague said:
What do you think he told the cops on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th?
Click to expand...

He was questioned on the 2nd.
I don't know what he had told them then, but on the 5th he certainly called it a "sack of crap".
On the 3rd and 4th he was not questioned at all.


"And he did tell Matteini that he spent the night at home with Amanda. That is his one and only statement made "in court" about what he did that night."
Click to expand...

And why is he not saying that in his diary?
Why is he saying instead that they were out in the centre of the town and got home at about 8-8:30?

It was written in the silent jail cell, presumably he was not stoned, there were no policemen yelling around him and forcing him to stand barefoot on the street.
And still for some reason he is writing such remarkable things.

Why? Why? Why?

It is interesting that the prosecution did not even enter his statement of the 5th breaking his alibi into evidence in the trial.
Click to expand...

Because it can't be used against him.
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
Everyone can say what they want. But you are falsely suggesting that there is a moral equivalency here. The difference between Kercher and the Knox/Sollecito families, is that Kercher is wrong.
Click to expand...

Wrong? Such certainty is hardly rational.
 
bolint said:
To me the rock is in wrong place under the chair and the glass pieces could not fall that way on the sill if a rock had been thrown through the windows,
Click to expand...

Are you aware that the pieces of glass were found very deep into the room? How could that be if the rock was thrown from inside? If it was not thrown at all and the window was just broken and then they placed the rock under the chair, then how would you explain the glass being that far from the window? Did they place it by their own fingers, these little pieces of broken window? If so, then why there's no DNA or fingerprints on these pieces coming from Amanda or Raffaele?

To me, the rock landed exactly in the place it should land if thrown from outside and there's dirt under the rock, which means it landed with big force (leaving dirt on the floor).
 
paradox

CoulsdonUK said:
I can only be responsible for my own views, if you have issue with comments others have made then the logical action would be to ask them.
Click to expand...
CoulsdonUK,

Your views are paradoxical. On the one hand, you assert that families have the right to defend their children. On the other, you excuse Mr. Kercher's criticizing Amanda's parents for doing just that. Not for the first time I ask you to resolve that paradox.
EDT
Is commenting upon and criticizing what Mr. Kercher writes about the case wrong per se, as lionking suggests?
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Criticism of the Kerchers reflects badly on the innocentisti. I am not even a member of the "guilter" community, let alone a spokesman for it.
Click to expand...

Why? Is it not possible both (i) to feel sympathy for someone who has lost their daughter, and (ii) to feel strong disapproval of that person's misplaced vengeance?
 
PhantomWolf said:
Not according to Raff's appeal documents.
Click to expand...

I have read that appeal and could not find anything in it that proves computer use after 21:26.


Evidence of this beyond what a stoned boy told the police to get them off his back?
Click to expand...

Evidence that he was stoned and that he had said that to get them off his back?


"Evidence?
How?"
Click to expand...

The owner of the footprint on the bathmat had to get into the bathroom somehow and his foot was covered with blood. There should be traces.
Likewise from the room to the bathroom.
 
lionking said:
Wrong? Such certainty is hardly rational.
Click to expand...

I'm not completely sure you would be the person I would go to for an expert opinion on what is rational.

Mr. Kercher is definitely wrong about a number of issues of fact, and definitely wrong in thinking that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were in any way involved with the murder of his daughter.

Then again, perhaps any of us would feel the same way if we lost a child and then someone dangled a few million dollars in front of us and told us that we got to keep the money if one particular suspect did it. I'd like to think I'd retain the faculty of rational thought in such circumstances but then again we'd all like to think that. Heck, all sorts of demonstrably irrational people would like to think that they were rational in the first place.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
I read it differently; he seemed fed up of Amanda’s parents on or in the UK media, quite natural if he feels his family’s pain and loss are being ignored and his daughter’s murder being forgotten by the media. Just as Amanda’s parents have been publicly defending their daughter Mr Kercher clearly wanted people read about his family view and as I have said know something of Meredith other than a murder victim.

It is strange how some posters passionately argue that Raffaele and Amanda’s parents have a right to speak out about the case as they see it, but somehow when Mr Kercher does the same thing it’s wrong, should anyone really be surprised that he believes in the prosecution’s case is this unusual in some way?
Click to expand...


I see the UK media as much as you do, and I don't see any lack of the Kerchers' point of view being put forward. Meredith as a person has been very sympathetically portrayed, and rightly so.

I don't see anyone denying Mr. Kercher the right to speak about the case. However, I agree with those who believe it is inappropriate (to put it no more strongly) for him to speak out saying that the Knox family should have no right to say in public that they believe their daughter is innocent. The implication that Knox and Sollecito should be denied the right to the automatic second trial and simply jaled on the basis of the preliminary verdict, because he believes the judicial process is denying him "closure", is frankly monstrous.

I feel for the man, I really do, but when blind emotion prevents him from seeing that the case against Knox and Sollecito was always flaky and is now collapsing in a heap, then sympathy for his ordeal gives way to a desire to shake him till his teeth rattle.

Rolfe.
 
bolint said:
He was questioned on the 2nd.
I don't know what he had told then, but on the 5th he certainly called it a "sack of crap".
On the 3rd and 4th he was not questioned at all.




And why is he not saying that in his diary?
Why is he saying instead that they were out in the centre of the town and get home at about 8-8:30?

It was written in the silent jail cell, presumably he was not stoned, there were no policemen yelling around him and forcing him to stand barefoot on the street.
And still for some reason he is writing such remarkable things.

Why? Why? Why?



Because it can't be used against him.
Click to expand...


He also called his sack of crap statement a load of crap in front of Matteini. He says crap a lot in his diary. One of his favorite words.

Amanda's couldn't be used against her either. I guess the real evidence amounts to two statements that can't be used against either of them.
 
bolint said:
The absolute minimum is two independent, coherent and detailed account of what they were doing that night. Without many "don't remember"-s.
Click to expand...

As others have pointed out, they claim they were at Raffaele's apartment, pursuing activities such as eating dinner, watching a film, smoking marijuana, and having sexual intercourse. Why doesn't this suffice?

More importantly, your focus is on entirely the wrong kind of information. What people say (or don't say) is the absolute weakest form of evidence that there is.

Given that Guede was not a close associate of either of the two, the lack of physical traces of Amanda Knox and (excluding the discredited bra clasp) Raffaele Sollecito in the murder room contrasted with the abundant traces of Guede is much more important information than anything about what Knox or Sollecito said or didn't say.

This seems like an elementary point to me; this case has been educational in terms of acquainting me with just how widespread the inability to grasp this is.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Then again, perhaps any of us would feel the same way if we lost a child and then someone dangled a few million dollars in front of us and told us that we got to keep the money if one particular suspect did it. I'd like to think I'd retain the faculty of rational thought in such circumstances but then again we'd all like to think that.
Click to expand...


QFT.

Rolfe.
 
lionking said:
And yet people are convicted daily on precisely this basis. Tell you what, how about designing a criminal justice system without these characteristics?
Click to expand...


Not to derail, but this is an example too damn close to home.

http://www.vetpath.co.uk/lockerbie/photoid.pdf

Oh yes, the shopkeeper definitely recognised the defendant as the man he sold some clothes to more than ten years earlier, had never seen before in his life, and would never see again.

Courts like that sort of thing, but a substantial proportion of miscarriages of justice rest on just such "eyewitness" testimony.

Rolfe.
 
lionking said:
Are you, and Kevin for that matter, suggesting that the Kerchers are motivated by a pay out? If so, this is a disgusting proposition. Without evidence. Unskeptical.
Click to expand...


I am observing that it is entirely possible.

Indeed, to your comment, I would say that denying it is possible for any human being to be motivated by the possibility of gaining a couple of million dollars is about as unsceptical as it gets.

Rolfe.
 
halides1 said:
lionking,

Do criticisms of the Knox, Mellas, or Sollecito family reflect badly on the pro-guilt community? If not, then why do criticisms of the Kercher family reflect badly on the pro-innocence community?

CoulsdonUK,

You have affirmed the rights of parents to speak on behalf of their children, yet you have not said that Mr. Kercher was wrong to express displeasure at Ms. Knox's parents for doing just that. Does he not deserve the mildest criticism for doing so? In the same article Mr. Kercher also indicated that Amanda's and Raffaele's appeal has kept his family from closure, thus suggesting that they should abandon the appeal process. I agree that it is his right to that belief, but I also assert my right to point out where his thinking has gone wrong.
Click to expand...
Halides1

He did write of the impact of what I think we can all agree is a very slow process. However, his focus once again naturally I believe is on the impact on his family rather than on Raffaele and Amanda’s, by the same reasoning Raffaele and Amanda’s family see the process from their perspective.

Your views are paradoxical. On the one hand, you assert that families have the right to defend their children. On the other, you excuse Mr. Kercher's criticizing Amanda's parents for doing just that. Not for the first time I ask you to resolve that paradox.
Click to expand...

I do not regard my views as paradoxical as my response above outlines. I accept you and others have a different opinion
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom