Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Poppy1016]

Maresca is now defending another Stefanoni, Pietro Stefanoni, driver in an alleged hit-and-run mishap in which an American woman was killed. Anybody believe Stefanoni's far-fetched story in his defense? HERE. Does Maresca believe him?

///

Maresca is after only one thing- money. He is a lowlife slime like Mignini. Anyone that supports these 2 must have no morals or ethics.

 

[icerat]

You are repeatedly insulting the Kerchers; their judgement about what is right to do and about what is relevant and useful in a trial, and directly offending their feelings and values toward their siblings. Your statements are offensive and unacceptable. You demonstrate to be incapable of having basic respect and knowledge of others rights, you are exposing and embarassing yourself showing your true contept of the victim.

Honestly, if what you say is true, and this was all approved by the Kerchers, then I'm sorry, but they do not deserve respect. I am sorry for their loss, but their loss does not give them the right to destroy the lives of innocent people.

As has already been pointed out, the display of those photographs in the manner in which they occurred plays no role at all in determining guilt or innocence. It was nothing more than a disgusting attempt at emotional blackmail, facts be damned.

Anyone who believes that is appropriate will get no respect from me.

ETA: Right now, Machiavelli, it is YOU that is damaging the reputation of the Kercher's with your claims. I'll reserve judgement on them until or if I learn the true facts about the use of the photographs. I can, and have, however passed judgement on you.

 

[Machiavelli]

Why do you think that the Sollecitos would have wanted these horrible depictions shown? I see no reason why they would have believed they would help their case. Were they trying to show the ineptitude of the PLE?

Their interest was defensive.
Byt the way, they also organized an actual conspiracy, to attempt to do other things; in an attempt to have the heads of the Perugia police removed from their office.

As a matter of clarification, have they been convicted of this or have they admitted they did it?

The father has admitted. They - a well as some journalists - have been ordered to stand trial.

I personally don't see why Maresca showed the pictures and believe that if anything they hurt his case.

I'm really curious if the Italian perspective is very different from mine.

Your lines were about four or five different topics.
Personally I see why Maresca showed the picture. And I was there to see them. Moreover, the pictures were shown in the same room by Mignini the day before, and no one complained.

I'm impressed with the Italian attitude about lying. At least in theory they seem to regard lying as much bigger crime and issue than we do here in the US. I like the idea of making lying a crime outside of perjury and civil cases.

I don't think the Italians see lying as a crime or as immoral in general. Instead, what is interesting, I think instead the Italian moral perspective is entirely related to the matter of the lying. We tolerate lies much easilly when they are legitimate, on the other hand we weight them much more seriously when they are illegitimate. When the topic of the lie is informal, lies count less; but when the topic is formal, Italy is a country where your life may depend on one word.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Maresca is now defending another Stefanoni, Pietro Stefanoni, driver in an alleged hit-and-run mishap in which an American woman was killed. Anybody believe Stefanoni's far-fetched story in his defense? HERE. Does Maresca believe him?

///

Hmmm. To say that I am not convinced would be to put it mildly! I would suggest that he appears very guilty going off the info. in the article, but clearly I'd need to know more details before condemning him completely.

It's interesting that Maresca is defending him - he might not be the Kerchers lawyer for much longer if rumours prove correct.

 

[Machiavelli]

Again, you have no clue. Respecting the Kerchers would mean following the evidence and finding out the truth of what happened to Meredith. Ignoring the evidence is what disrespects Meredith's memory. I feel bad that the Kerchers believed what Mignini told them about Knox and Rafaele. There was never any evidence it was true, but of course they believed that snake. Any family would believe the prosecutor. It is not their fault they have been tricked into believing Knox is guilty, but that doesn't make the prosecution's theory any more true.

If the Kerchers hadn't been lied to by ass-covering police and prosecutors who didn't want to admit a mistake, they would have had closure years ago. If the authorities had simply followed the evidence and convicted Guede, and only Guede, much suffering would have been avoided. It is those who have irrationally insisted that Knox had something to do with this who have magnified the Kerchers' pain a thousandfold.

How dare you accuse me of insulting the Kerchers when it is people like you who are responsible for magnifying their anguish.

You prove you are insulting the Kerchers, because you are unable to respect them.
You shall not give them your compassion.
You shall give them your respect.

Their representative has taken a position. They decided to show the photos in the way they deemed fit.
You don't even know what Maresca said about the pictures, yet you guess they are irrelevant. Ok. Whatever you, out of your ignorance of how he used them, think about it, this is what the Kerchers decided to do.

This is their position, their belief, their decision. On this, you judged they don't give a crap about Meredith, and this is an insult. You said that their representative doesn't represent them, that they are fooled, that they are not the ones in control, and this is another insult.
Shut up and be respectful. Learn the basics.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Honestly, if what you say is true, and this was all approved by the Kerchers, then I'm sorry, but they do not deserve respect. I am sorry for their loss, but their loss does not give them the right to destroy the lives of innocent people.

As has already been pointed out, the display of those photographs in the manner in which they occurred plays no role at all in determining guilt or innocence. It was nothing more than a disgusting attempt at emotional blackmail, facts be damned.

Anyone who believes that is appropriate will get no respect from me.

ETA: Right now, Machiavelli, it is YOU that is damaging the reputation of the Kercher's with your claims. I'll reserve judgement on them until or if I learn the true facts about the use of the photographs. I can, and have, however passed judgement on you.

I recall reading (can't remember the source) that Maresca said that he had obtained permission to show the photographs from the Kerchers (I reckon he only told them the very basics) BUT he 'FORGOT' (Yeah, right) to ask for the court to be cleared of the press and other onlookers!

 

[Poppy1016]

Machiavelli,
I'm quite certain that Italians as a whole are great people. It is people like you and your buddies Mignini and Maresca that tarnish the reputation of the good people of Italy. The legal system in Perugia needs an enema to cleanse itself of all the foul smelling crap.

 

[Grinder]

Their interest was defensive.
Byt the way, they also organized an actual conspiracy, to attempt to do other things; in an attempt to have the heads of the Perugia police removed from their office.

If the police did what some think they did in "railroading" the kids, I too would try to get many of the ILE removed.

Your lines were about four or five different topics.
Personally I see why Maresca showed the picture. And I was there to see them. Moreover, the pictures were shown in the same room by Mignini the day before, and no one complained.

Regardless I think showing them was not effective. Not sure what you mean my 4 or 5 topics, but no matter.

I don't think the Italians see lying as a crime or as immoral in general. Instead, what is interesting, I think instead the Italian moral perspective is entirely related to the matter of the lying. We tolerate lies much easilly when they are legitimate, on the other hand we weight them much more seriously when they are illegitimate. When the topic of the lie is informal, lies count less; but when the topic is formal, Italy is a country where your life may depend on one word.

I really find this an interesting area beyond this case. In the US it very difficult to make people pay for lying. Outside of perjury which is exclusively related to court actions or lying to investigative bodies and agencies or congress, here lying is not a crime. Perhaps, that is also true in Italy but the statement made by Amanda against Patrick would not have been a criminal charge IMO.

How do you define a legitimate?

 

[Scorpion NITE]

You prove you are insulting the Kerchers, because you are unable to respect them.
You shall not give them your compassion.
You shall give them your respect.

Their representative has taken a position. They decided to show the photos in the way they deemed fit.
You don't even know what Maresca said about the pictures, yet you guess they are irrelevant. Ok. Whatever you, out of your ignorance of how he used them, think about it, this is what the Kerchers decided to do.

This is their position, their belief, their decision. On this, you judged they don't give a crap about Meredith, and this is an insult. You said that their representative doesn't represent them, that they are fooled, that they are not the ones in control, and this is another insult.
Shut up and be respectful. Learn the basics.

Did the Kerchers give Maresca permission to show the pictures to each and everyone present in the Court that day (like you) OR was this a horrendous 'mistake' by Maresca?

 

[Dougm]

Your lines were about four or five different topics.
Personally I see why Maresca showed the picture. And I was there to see them. Moreover, the pictures were shown in the same room by Mignini the day before, and no one complained.

It is my understanding that, every other time the pictures were shown, including when Mignini showed them, the press was not allowed to be there to view them, and the cameras were turned off. Yet when Maresca showed them, the press were there, and there was no warning given to anyone that he was going to show them. Is that accurate, and if so, what was the purspose in doing that?

Also, since Mignini had already shown the jury the photos, and they are part of the case file, what was the purpose of Maresca showing them again?

 

[Freddy]

You prove you are insulting the Kerchers, because you are unable to respect them.
You shall not give them your compassion.
You shall give them your respect.

Their representative has taken a position. They decided to show the photos in the way they deemed fit.
You don't even know what Maresca saif about the pictures, yet you guess they are irrelevant. Ok. Whatever you, out of your ignorance of how he used them, think about it, this is what the Kerchers decided to do.

This is their position, their belief, their decision. On this, you judged they don't give a crap about Meredith, and this is an insult.
Shut up and be respectful. Learn the basics.

I would bet you a million dollars it was Maresca's idea, and that the Kerchers had to be talked into it. I don't blame them for listening to their lawyer. It was legal to do, and I'm sure he told them it would help their case. This was incorrect, as it backfired, if anything. In most developed countries, it would be misconduct on the part of the lawyer to show those pictures in court, at least until guilt was settled. Showing such pictures at sentencing is one thing; using them to obtain a conviction is illegal in most developed countries. That is not true in Italy, but that only makes Italy look bad. You don't seem to get that, but no matter.

All showing that picture did was cause the Kerchers more pain. The fact that they agreed to it does not change this. Again, I don't blame them. It isn't their fault they hired a jackass of a lawyer, and it isn't their fault the authorities refused to let go of a bizarre theory of the crime that never made sense and that was contradicted by the manifest weight of the evidence.

Like most of the public (myself included), the Kerchers believed that the prosecutors must have real evidence for their bizarre and salacious early claims about the murder. I stopped believing the prosecution when it became clear that their theory was nonsense, that they had arrived at their conclusions before the physical evidence was tested, and that the physical evidence contradicted those conclusions. The Kerchers never stopped believing it, because of their emotional involvement and their trust in the authorities. That is completely understandable for them. It is not understandable for the authorities, or for you.

It is not insulting the Kerchers to point out that the people they trusted betrayed their trust and greatly increased their already unimaginable grief. What is insulting to the Kerchers was turning a brutal but straightforward crime into a media circus about a supposed satanic orgy, based entirely on the perverted imagination of an out of control prosecutor, who came up with the theory before the physical evidence had even been tested and refused to let it go even after the evidence didn't support it. Not only that, but the prosecution tried to twist the evidence to fit their theory by using unreliable techniques to give the veneer of science to what was really pure conjecture. That is what is insulting to Meredith's memory.

 

[Dougm]

Is that a siren I hear?

Maresca is after only one thing- money. He is a lowlife slime like Mignini. Anyone that supports these 2 must have no morals or ethics.

Anyone know how to say "Ambulance chaser" in Italian?

 

[Ammonitida]

If the police did what some think they did in "railroading" the kids, I too would try to get many of the ILE removed.




Regardless I think showing them was not effective. Not sure what you mean my 4 or 5 topics, but no matter.



I really find this an interesting area beyond this case. In the US it very difficult to make people pay for lying. Outside of perjury which is exclusively related to court actions or lying to investigative bodies and agencies or congress, here lying is not a crime. Perhaps, that is also true in Italy but the statement made by Amanda against Patrick would not have been a criminal charge IMO.

How do you define a legitimate?

Any truth to this conspiracy by the Sollecito family or is this just more delusional nonsense by Mignini/Machiavelli?

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Anyone know how to say "Ambulance chaser" in Italian?

It's a while since I studied the language but I think it was something like:

'La Maresca'

Or maybe that's Spanish?

 

[Freddy]

Any truth to this conspiracy by the Sollecito family or is this just more delusional nonsense by Mignini/Machiavelli?

I'll give you three guesses.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

The Crack Team.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ic-actress-says-bar-owner-accused-murder.html

''Questions about the professionalism of forensic officers in the case have emerged after they were heard joking on a crime scene video about taking cocaine to stay awake.

The tape was shown to the court during the appeal and at the original trial but with no audio – until it was played on Italian TV''


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tigators-joked-taking-cocaine-stay-awake.html

''One of the men is heard to say: 'I could really do with some cocaine to give me a kick.' His colleague replies: 'Don't you mean crack?' Both then laugh loudly while examining the blood-splattered room.''

''In other parts of the film they seem to be confused over which equipment to use to examine the scene and one then reveals how a product known as Luminol which shows up blood invisible to the naked eye has been left in Rome.''

''Damning dossier of 50 police blunders''

 

[LashL]

Oh no, let's not bend things to hypocritical judgemental attempts.

Yes, let's not. You do have a tendency to spouting hypocritical judgments, so it's good that you're finally recognizing that.

For the sake of background, I've seen so many gruesome autopsy and crime scene photographs and videos that I think I've become almost immune to the horror of them, but there are some that stick with me, that are so horrific that I cannot wipe them out of my memory banks, no matter how hard I try. And god knows I've tried.

The pics and videos that have been shown from this particular crime scene are not among them, though, as they're really pretty tame in comparison.

I would guess that this might not make them any less shocking to those who have never seen a foot or a forehead in the context of a crime scene before, but honestly, the images in this case are not at all surprising, let alone shocking, if you've had any exposure whatsoever to crime scene photos or any involvement in the criminal justice system.

First, Maresca has the right to show pictures, as legal representative of the victim, and his action fully represent the will of her family;

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Maresca, on behalf of the Kerchers, move to have the images shown only in private sessions during the first trial, and didn't the courtroom get cleared for that purpose, and wasn't that based upon the family's purported view that the pictures should not be made public?

Was the showing of the pictures really at the behest of the family in the second trial? Are you sure about that? The early reports during the second trial were that the family did not approve and did not authorize it, but I would not be surprised if the media got that wrong, just as they got so much else wrong. But, assuming that you are correct that the pictures were shown in open court at the "will of her family" during the second trial, what changed for the Kercher family between the first trial and the second trial that they went from asking for closed sessions in the first trial when the pictures were to be disclosed and going along with Maresca's showing the images to the world in the second trial? What do you think changed for them to go from position A to position B?

If the Kercher family felt it appropriate to air those photos to all and sundry during the second trial, doesn't that undermine their previous (reported) position? And doesn't that undermine the accusations against Mr. Sollecito's family members for "publicizing" the same stuff that Ms. Kercher's family now feels was perfectly acceptable to be publicized during the second trial?

Second, the statement that they are 100% irrelevant is false. In my opinion they were very relevant; and I think the autopsy report, the visual documentation, and the explanation of them in court is an important point in the evidence.

I think they were quite relevant, too, and that they should have been shown in the first trial and subject to complete cross-examination, instead of being suppressed and/or played down by Maresca and his clients. I think that the autopsy report and the crime scene photographs favour the proposition that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito were innocent from the outset, and I would have preferred that that evidence had been fully and forcefully profferred in open court, rather than being sloughed aside and semi-hidden at the behest of the Kerchers and their civil suit. I think the defence may have missed something in this regard at the time. It's almost as though everyone was being "ever so polite" instead of getting down to the evidence.

So, why do you think, Machiavelli, that the Kerchers and their lawyer were so adamant about keeping this stuff quiet instead of having it fully and completely examined in court during the first trial? And why do you think they suddenly changed their minds during the second trial?

Third, it's you who are insulting the Kercher; as their legal representative, Maresca has to be identified with the will of the family, and he had also declared - during the rebuttals - that he had an explicit authorization and approval to showing the pictures from the Kerchers; and the Kerchers never criticized him for doing that. Hence, you are insulting the Kercher family, since you are stating that the Kerchers don't care ("don't give a crap") about Meredith.

Oh, please. The only one "insulting the Kerchers" here is you, as you seem to think that they cannot speak for themselves, and you seem to think that they need morons or idiots to speak for them. That's insulting. They don't need morons or idiots to speak for them. The family members appear to be quite articulate and competent about speaking for themselves. I feel very sorry for them that there is a group of deliberately misinformed/uninformed people purporting to speak on their behalf, but I do not believe that that is their wish. I think that if they take the time to look into the facts of the case, they will conclude that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito had nothing at all to do with the death of their daughter/sister, Meredith.

That aside, the Kerchers can answer for themselves for insinuating themselves with a civil case - which is a claim for monetary compensation only - into the midst of the criminal case into the who/what/where/how of the criminal case. They should not have done so, in my view. There was nothing stopping them from starting a separate civil case after the criminal case was done, but they chose to intervene in the criminal case, and personally, I find that tasteless, not to mention that it would be unconstitutional where I live, and probably where they live, too. It seems that they may have been misled by Maresca in this regard, though, so perhaps it's not their fault. One can not really fault them for being led astray by a jackal like Maresca.

Also, as mentioned above, it appears that Maresca may have overstepped his bounds in his quest for his own monetary compensation. Have you any information about that? If the Kerchers were so against the photos and videos of the crime scene being shown publicly, which it seems they legitimately were during the first trial, why on earth have they suddenly "approved" it during the second trial of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito? It makes no sense, really. Rather, it looks like the Kercher family has been led down the garden path by Maresca.

I feel for Ms. Kercher's family. I think that they got bad advice early on and chose to follow Maresca, without ever seeking a second - and more professional - opinion. They should have.

 

[Dan O.]

To state this in terms of an American idiom, what the prosecutors and side show attorneys did is called a "Hail Mary Pass^WP". They had already lost the case and they knew it. The strategy was to throw everything they could into the air and hope to garner enough sympathy with the jury to steal a victory. There would be no sanctions if they lost because there would be no damages. If they managed to pull out a guilty verdict, the sanctions would be minor compared to the benefit of wining.

 

[Freddy]

Yes, let's not.

For the sake of background, I've seen so many gruesome autopsy and crime scene photographs and videos that I think I've become almost immune to the horror of them, but there are some that stick with me, that are so horrific that I cannot wipe them out of my memory banks, no matter how hard I try. And I've tried.

The pics and videos that have been shown from this particular crime scene are not among them, though, as they're really pretty tame in comparison.

I would guess that this might not make them any less shocking to those who have never seen a foot or a forehead in the context of a crime scene before, but honestly, the images in this case are not at all surprising, let alone shocking, if you've had any exposure whatsoever to crime scene photos or any involvement in the criminal justice system.





Please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Maresca, on behalf of the Kerchers, move to have the images shown only in private sessions during the first trial, and didn't the courtroom get cleared for that purpose? And wasn't that based upon the family's purported view that the pictures should not be made public?

And was the showing of the pictures really at the behest of the family in the second trial? Are you sure about that? The early reports during the second trial were that the family did not approve and did not authorize it, but I would not be surprised if the media got that wrong, just as they got so much else wrong. But, assuming that you are correct that the pictures were shown in open court at the "will of her family" during the second trial, what changed for the Kercher family between the first trial and the second trial that they went from asking for closed sessions in the first trial when the pictures were to be disclosed and going along with Maresca's showing the images to the world in the second trial? What do you think changed for them to go from position A to position B? And if the family felt it appropriate to air those photos to all and sundry during the second trial, doesn't that undermine their previous (reported) position? And doesn't that undermine the accusations against Mr. Sollecito's family members for "publicizing" the same stuff that Ms. Kercher's family now feels should be publicized during the second trial?




I think they were quite relevant, too, and that they should have been shown in the first trial and subject to complete cross-examination, instead of being suppressed and/or played down by Maresca and his clients. I think that the autopsy report and the crime scene photographs favour the proposition that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito were innocent from the outset, and I would have preferred that that evidence had been fully and forcefully profferred in open court, rather than being sloughed aside and semi-hidden at the behest of the Kerchers and their civil suit. I think the defence fell down on the job in this regard. It's almost as though everyone was being "ever so polite" instead of getting down to the evidence.

So, why do you think, Machiavelli, that the Kerchers and their lawyer were so adamant about keeping this stuf quiet instead of having it fully and completely examined in court?




Oh, please. The only one "insulting the Kerchers" here is you, as you seem to think that they cannot speak for themselves, and you seem to think that they need morons or idiots to speak for them. That's insulting. They don't need morons or idiots to speak for them.

That aside, the Kerchers can answer for themselves for insinuating themselves with a civil case - which is a claim for monetary compensation only - into the midst of the criminal case into the who/what/where/how of the criminal case. They should not have done so, in my view. There was nothing stopping them from starting a separate civil case after the criminal case was done, but they chose to intervene in the criminal case, and personally, I find that tasteless, not to mention that it would be unconstitutional where I live, and probably where they live, too.

And as mentioned above, it appears that Maresca may have overstepped his bounds in his quest for his own monetary compensation. Have you any information about that? If the Kerchers were so against the photos and videos of the crime scene being shown publicly, which it seems they legitimately were during the first trial, why on earth have they suddenly "approved" it during the second trial of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito? It makes no sense, really. Rather, it looks like the Kercher family has been led down the garden path by Maresca.

I feel for Ms. Kercher's family. I think that they got bad advice early on and chose to follow Maresca, without ever seeking a second - and more professional - opinion. They should have.

On second thought, I agree the picture has relevance. But not when presented in that context (you seem to agree). Still, I don't think you need a picture of the body. Pictures of the scene after the body has been removed suffice for evidentiary purposes. At any rate, there is no evidentiary justification for showing it for an extended time, and to the public.

But you are certainly right that pictures of the crime scene are needed to show how much blood was everywhere, because that proves that only Guede was there. No way anyone could have been there without getting a substantial amount of blood on them, and there is no way someone with that much blood on them could get out without transferring a lot of evidence that they were there. If they cleaned up in Amanda's room, there would be lots of evidence of that. If they had cleaned up at Rafaele's house, there would have been a substantial amount of Meredith's blood there.

 

[Darth Rotor]

To state this in terms of an American idiom, what the prosecutors and side show attorneys did is called a "Hail Mary Pass^WP". They had already lost the case and they knew it. The strategy was to throw everything they could into the air and hope to garner enough sympathy with the jury to steal a victory. There would be no sanctions if they lost because there would be no damages. If they managed to pull out a guilty verdict, the sanctions would be minor compared to the benefit of wining.

I will suggest to you that the prosecutors' basic mistake came during jury selection.