Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Bill Williams]

I don't know why Amanda and Raff were not advised by their legal team to take the path of a lesser charge and a fast-track guilty plea. They would be out in a few years, truly exonerated and rehabilitated into the community. It is misguided and misconceived to imagine that escaping jail is the solution to not taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

Vixen, you are joking, right?

Also, how is one 'exonerated and rehabilitated into the community' after having plead guilty to murder and after having served time for committing said murder?

Again, you are joking, right?

It's always seemed that the professors of guilt were a little "off".

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, you are joking, right?

Also, how is one 'exonerated and rehabilitated into the community' after having plead guilty to murder and after having served time for committing said murder?

Again, you are joking, right?

FYI The whole point of crime and punishment, is that once you have served your sentence, you are received back into the community.

 

[LondonJohn]

Knox and Sollecito were not "advised by their legal team to take the path of a lesser charge and a fast-track guilty plea" because:

a) Charge trading is not done in the Italian criminal justice system;

b) The terms "fast track" and "guilty plea" mean entirely different things - electing for a fast-track trial in Italy actually explicitly means you are NOT pleading guilty;

c) Knox and Sollecito had nothing whatsoever to do with this crime, and there never was one credible, reliable piece of evidence of their participation.

As per usual, a combination of embarrassing ignorance and hopeless bias (predicated on the faulty and unsupported assumption that Knox and Sollecito actually participated in the Kercher murder) from the pro-guilt side. Pitiful.

 

[LondonJohn]

FYI The whole point of crime and punishment, is that once you have served your sentence, you are received back into the community.

FYI tell that to someone like Maxine Carr (girlfriend of double child killer Ian Huntley), who was convicted of perverting the course of justice and who served a prison sentence of (IIRC) a few years before being "received back into the community"...........

So ignorant. So ill-informed. So lacking in basic understanding.

 

[Vixen]

FYI tell that to someone like Maxine Carr (girlfriend of double child killer Ian Huntley), who was convicted of perverting the course of justice and who served a prison sentence of (IIRC) a few years before being "received back into the community"...........

So ignorant. So ill-informed. So lacking in basic understanding.

Maxine Carr? This woman was given a huge amount of public funds to be given a new ID, a 'safe house' completely at the cost of the taxpayer, not to mention police protection. Before you start bleating about criminals' rights, do try to remember those two little girls (= the Soham murders) killed by her boyfriend whom she covered up for, cleaned up his home from top to bottom including several cycles of a washing machine and was seen by neighbours examining their bodies in the boot of his car.

Yes, Maxine Carr is happily living back in society, with a nice new family and a lovely house in a lovely town, with police protection and her anonymity legally assured. She did her time on a lesser charge of perverting justice. She is extremely lucky not to have been charged as an accessory.

Both she and Ian Huntley claim to this day to be 'innocent'.

Will you be campaigning for their exoneration, too?

 

[Stacyhs]

No. There but for the Grace of God go you or I that our loved ones are not the victims of 'thrill' murderers. However, I can imagine the heartbreak and anguish. Surely, it doesn't take much for any of us to imagine how horrendous the whole thing must have been for the Kerchers.

Having said that, I am a great believer in civilisation and the evolution of our justice systems throughout the western world. I cannot see any merit in declaring an innocent man guilty or a guilty man innocent. It breeds corruption and vigilantism if justice is not done, nor seen to be done.

I don't know why Amanda and Raff were not advised by their legal team to take the path of a lesser charge and a fast-track guilty plea. They would be out in a few years, truly exonerated and rehabilitated into the community. It is misguided and misconceived to imagine that escaping jail is the solution to not taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions. The trial courts found a plethora of evidence of their definite guilt. What purpose does it serve pretending they are innocent? I know there is big money in this huge hoax, but ultimately, truth will out and the whole charade will come down like a pack of cards. Mez is not the only victim, the other victims are her family, her friends, the killers family, friends and supporters.

What is money? It is nothing, compared to peace of mind.

'The wealthiest person
Is a pauper at times
Compared to the man
With a satisfied mind'.

~ International Submarine Band (written by Hayes & Rhodes)

They didn't take a fast track trial because, unlike Guede, they weren't guilty. Guede took the fast track because he knew how much evidence there would be against him seeing how he was actually there and killed Meredith. He has yet to take "responsibility for (his) actions" as he still denies he had anything to do with Meredith's murder.

Is Guede going to be "exonerated" when he is out? Exactly how does one who has been definitively convicted of murder become "exonerated" upon release from prison after serving their sentence?

How and why does a person take responsibility for an action they never committed?

 

[Stacyhs]

Maxine Carr? This woman was given a huge amount of public funds to be given a new ID, a 'safe house' completely at the cost of the taxpayer, not to mention police protection. Before you start bleating about criminals' rights, do try to remember those two little girls (= the Soham murders) killed by her boyfriend whom she covered up for, cleaned up his home from top to bottom including several cycles of a washing machine and was seen by neighbours examining their bodies in the boot of his car.

Yes, Maxine Carr is happily living back in society, with a nice new family and a lovely house in a lovely town, with police protection and her anonymity legally assured. She did her time on a lesser charge of perverting justice. She is extremely lucky not to have been charged as an accessory.

Both she and Ian Huntley claim to this day to be 'innocent'.

Will you be campaigning for their exoneration, too?

What part of being "given a new ID, a 'safe house' completely at the cost of the taxpayer, not to mention police protection" is being "accepted back into the community"? The very fact that she had to be given a new identity is proof she would not have been accepted back by the community. You disprove your claim with your own "evidence".

 

[Vixen]

They didn't take a fast track trial because, unlike Guede, they weren't guilty. Guede took the fast track because he knew how much evidence there would be against him seeing how he was actually there and killed Meredith. He has yet to take "responsibility for (his) actions" as he still denies he had anything to do with Meredith's murder.

Is Guede going to be "exonerated" when he is out? Exactly how does one who has been definitively convicted of murder become "exonerated" upon release from prison after serving their sentence?

How and why does a person take responsibility for an action they never committed?

None of the courts agree with you, except the expunged Hellmann, which was as bent as a nine bob note.

The acquittal was for 'insufficient evidence' due to press influence and supposed (untried) flaws. Marasca confirms Amanda covered up for Rudy (think hard: why would the 'innocent' Amanda cover up for Rudy?), it is a proven fact she was there at the murder scene and near certain that so was Raff. Amanda washed off Mez' uncongealed blood. Do think about it.

 

[Vixen]

What part of being "given a new ID, a 'safe house' completely at the cost of the taxpayer, not to mention police protection" is being "accepted back into the community"? The very fact that she had to be given a new identity is proof she would not have been accepted back by the community. You disprove your claim with your own "evidence".

She has done her time, and now she is living the life of Riley. So the concept works.

Do look into the Homolka case. She had to up sticks with her kids and live abroad for years, so getting a new ID and assured anonymity is a PRIVILEGE, not a detriment.

 

[Bill Williams]

None of the courts agree with you, except the expunged Hellmann, which was as bent as a nine bob note.

The acquittal was for 'insufficient evidence' due to press influence and supposed (untried) flaws. Marasca confirms Amanda covered up for Rudy (think hard: why would the 'innocent' Amanda cover up for Rudy?), it is a proven fact she was there at the murder scene and near certain that so was Raff. Amanda washed off Mez' uncongealed blood. Do think about it.

None of this is true. If you're going to repeat this stuff let me repeat:

Subsequent courts said it was a judicial fact both were exonerated by the Italian Supreme Court.

 

[LondonJohn]

What part of being "given a new ID, a 'safe house' completely at the cost of the taxpayer, not to mention police protection" is being "accepted back into the community"? The very fact that she had to be given a new identity is proof she would not have been accepted back by the community. You disprove your claim with your own "evidence".

Exactly. The ignorance is amusing in its own way. And to address more arrant nonsense and agitation from elsewhere:

1) I do not "campaign for the exoneration" of Knox or Sollecito (and it's partisan bile to suggest I do). What I do is debate on an internet forum and I hold a position that neither Knox nor Sollecito should ever have been charged - far less found guilty - of anything related to the murder of Meredith Kercher. Fortunately for justice, the Italian Supreme Court agrees with me 100%.

2) I will not be "campaigning for the exoneration" of either Maxine Carr or Ian Huntley, and nor will I be debating their case in any online forums. Why not? Because I believe that there was more than sufficient reliable, credible evidence to convict both of them for the crimes for which they were convicted, and thus I believe they were both correctly convicted and sentenced by a competent justice system. To hold the view that I (or anyone) should somehow automatically start "campaigning for exoneration" for any and all convicted criminals who still protest their innocence is as offensive as it is ignorant. But again, I'm not surprised.

3) The suggestion that I was "bleating about criminals' rights" is also as offensive as it is incorrect. My pointing out that Maxine Carr clearly was not going to be "accepted back into the community" (and instead required and received a new identity etc) was in direct response to the asinine suggestion that convicted criminals are somehow automatically accepted back into society once they've served a prison sentence, and it has precisely nothing to do with any discussion of "criminals' rights" - indeed, ironically, the person who made this offensive accusation was the one who first argued that convicted criminals who have done their time in prison should be able to be "received back into the community". I doubt the irony will be understood in certain quarters though......

 

[Stacyhs]

None of the courts agree with you, except the expunged Hellmann, which was as bent as a nine bob note.

The acquittal was for 'insufficient evidence' due to press influence and supposed (untried) flaws. Marasca confirms Amanda covered up for Rudy (think hard: why would the 'innocent' Amanda cover up for Rudy?), it is a proven fact she was there at the murder scene and near certain that so was Raff. Amanda washed off Mez' uncongealed blood. Do think about it.

How conveniently you forget... or is that simply ignore...that Massei and Nencini were also expunged.

Your penchant for cherry picking is amazing. The acquittal was for more than just press influence and "supposed (untried) flaws". It was for “Investigative amnesia”, “stunning flaws” and “omissions in the investigative activity” but more importantly because no evidence of either AK or RS was found in MK's bedroom where she was killed, unlike Guede, and that it is a scientific impossibility for the two to only remove forensic evidence of themselves. THAT is the major reason they were acquitted. But you ignore that.

No, Marasca did not "confirm" that Knox covered up for Guede. What Marasca wrote was "Nevertheless, the calumny in question also represents circumstantial evidence against the appellant in so much as it could be considered as an initiative to cover for Guede, against whom she would have had an interest to protect herself due to retaliatory accusations against her." Notice the use of the words "could be considered" which means it is a possibility, not a fact. This is where Marasca was bound by the previously ISC confirmation of the calumny charge. Marasca had to deal with that "judicial truth".

As for AK washing MK's blood from her hands, there is no forensic evidence of that at all. NONE.

 

[LondonJohn]

None of this is true. If you're going to repeat this stuff let me repeat:

Subsequent courts said it was a judicial fact both were exonerated by the Italian Supreme Court.

You're banging your head against a brick wall here, I'm afraid. An overinvested zeal for guilt requires a rationalisation of the Marasca SC verdict and motivation. And the go-to rationalisation among pro-guilt commentators appears to be a toxic combination of any or all of: a) the Italian Supreme Court panel in this case was incompetent; b) the Italian Supreme Court panel in this case was corrupt/bent; c) the Italian Supreme Court panel in this case actually made a damning condemnation of Knox and Sollecito, but acquitted them on some sort of trifling technicality related to media intrusion and minor flaws in the investigation.

As you and I and every rational, objective commentator know very well, the Marasca SC ruling was unequivocal in stating that there was zero case to answer for either Knox or Sollecito. You and I and every rational, objective commentator also know very well that the Marasca SC panel in no way stated or implied that Knox "was at the murder scene", or that Sollecito was "at the murder scene", or that Knox "washed off Mez' Mez's Kercher's uncongealed blood", and that Marasca's rulings in respect of Knox's still-valid criminal slander conviction were wholly constrained and dictated by the fact that a) that whole area was strictly outside the remit of Marasca's court, and b) in any case, Marasca's court was entirely bound by the previous SC ruling on the criminal slander conviction (the ruling which will soon be addressed by the ECHR......).

 

[LondonJohn]

How conveniently you forget... or is that simply ignore...that Massei and Nencini were also expunged.

Your penchant for cherry picking is amazing. The acquittal was for more than just press influence and "supposed (untried) flaws". It was for “Investigative amnesia”, “stunning flaws” and “omissions in the investigative activity” but more importantly because no evidence of either AK or RS was found in MK's bedroom where she was killed, unlike Guede, and that it is a scientific impossibility for the two to only remove forensic evidence of themselves. THAT is the major reason they were acquitted. But you ignore that.

No, Marasca did not "confirm" that Knox covered up for Guede. What Marasca wrote was "Nevertheless, the calumny in question also represents circumstantial evidence against the appellant in so much as it could be considered as an initiative to cover for Guede, against whom she would have had an interest to protect herself due to retaliatory accusations against her." Notice the use of the words "could be considered" which means it is a possibility, not a fact. This is where Marasca was bound by the previously ISC confirmation of the calumny charge. Marasca had to deal with that "judicial truth".

As for AK washing MK's blood from her hands, there is no forensic evidence of that at all. NONE.

You don't seem to understand how this sad little game is played, stacy! Look, I'll show you:

The Marasca SC panel clearly stated in its motivations report that it believed both Knox and Sollecito to be guilty of participation in Mez' Mez's Kercher's murder, but that it was acquitting them simply in order to appease the US Government and the Sollecito clan of the Italian and North American Mafias.

Wow look!! I just pulled lies and misinterpretations straight out of my backside and presented them as facts! It's even easier than I thought!!

 

[Stacyhs]

She has done her time, and now she is living the life of Riley. So the concept works.

Do look into the Homolka case. She had to up sticks with her kids and live abroad for years, so getting a new ID and assured anonymity is a PRIVILEGE, not a detriment.

Nice try but no cigar. The concept is not what we were discussing. You claimed that a convicted person, once released from prison, would be "exonerated" and "accepted back into the community". When a person has to be given a new identity, it is precisely because they will not be accepted back into the community under their own name.

Once again, you disprove your own statement with the Homolka case. WHY did she have to live abroad? Because she wasn't "exonerated" and "accepted back into the community!

Who said getting a new ID is a detriment? You are very adept at moving the goal posts when you're backed into a corner and can't get out.

 

[Stacyhs]

You don't seem to understand how this sad little game is played, stacy! Look, I'll show you:

The Marasca SC panel clearly stated in its motivations report that it believed both Knox and Sollecito to be guilty of participation in Mez' Mez's Kercher's murder, but that it was acquitting them simply in order to appease the US Government and the Sollecito clan of the Italian and North American Mafias.

Wow look!! I just pulled lies and misinterpretations straight out of my backside and presented them as facts! It's even easier than I thought!!

I stand corrected, LJ. I forgot a certain someone's reliance on assfacts.

 

[Vixen]

Exactly. The ignorance is amusing in its own way. And to address more arrant nonsense and agitation from elsewhere:

1) I do not "campaign for the exoneration" of Knox or Sollecito (and it's partisan bile to suggest I do). What I do is debate on an internet forum and I hold a position that neither Knox nor Sollecito should ever have been charged - far less found guilty - of anything related to the murder of Meredith Kercher. Fortunately for justice, the Italian Supreme Court agrees with me 100%.

2) I will not be "campaigning for the exoneration" of either Maxine Carr or Ian Huntley, and nor will I be debating their case in any online forums. Why not? Because I believe that there was more than sufficient reliable, credible evidence to convict both of them for the crimes for which they were convicted, and thus I believe they were both correctly convicted and sentenced by a competent justice system. To hold the view that I (or anyone) should somehow automatically start "campaigning for exoneration" for any and all convicted criminals who still protest their innocence is as offensive as it is ignorant. But again, I'm not surprised.

3) The suggestion that I was "bleating about criminals' rights" is also as offensive as it is incorrect. My pointing out that Maxine Carr clearly was not going to be "accepted back into the community" (and instead required and received a new identity etc) was in direct response to the asinine suggestion that convicted criminals are somehow automatically accepted back into society once they've served a prison sentence, and it has precisely nothing to do with any discussion of "criminals' rights" - indeed, ironically, the person who made this offensive accusation was the one who first argued that convicted criminals who have done their time in prison should be able to be "received back into the community". I doubt the irony will be understood in certain quarters though......

What an offensive idea that criminals should evade justice by working the system, and campaigning to influence a court to make an exception for someone just because a few - largely middle-aged - men feel like rescuing the 'little lady in distress'.

 

[Vixen]

How conveniently you forget... or is that simply ignore...that Massei and Nencini were also expunged.

Your penchant for cherry picking is amazing. The acquittal was for more than just press influence and "supposed (untried) flaws". It was for “Investigative amnesia”, “stunning flaws” and “omissions in the investigative activity” but more importantly because no evidence of either AK or RS was found in MK's bedroom where she was killed, unlike Guede, and that it is a scientific impossibility for the two to only remove forensic evidence of themselves. THAT is the major reason they were acquitted. But you ignore that.

No, Marasca did not "confirm" that Knox covered up for Guede. What Marasca wrote was "Nevertheless, the calumny in question also represents circumstantial evidence against the appellant in so much as it could be considered as an initiative to cover for Guede, against whom she would have had an interest to protect herself due to retaliatory accusations against her." Notice the use of the words "could be considered" which means it is a possibility, not a fact. This is where Marasca was bound by the previously ISC confirmation of the calumny charge. Marasca had to deal with that "judicial truth".

As for AK washing MK's blood from her hands, there is no forensic evidence of that at all. NONE.

Once again, you betray your ignorance. The facts, as found by the trial courts, stand.

I dare say 'could be considered' is some kind of spin in the translation. In any case, it doesn't change the thrust of what Marasca says.

You keep claiming you only understand words in their literal face value. For example, you keep asserting that, for example, someone saying 'Bye, then' would cause you Big Heap Confusion were I to tell you they said goodbye.

In other words, I should avoid reading complex legal documents if phrases such as 'it would appear', 'it is understood', 'it seems to the court' or 'it could be considered' trick you into believing they negate whatever follows.

However, I'll translate, 'It could be considered Amanda covered up for Rudy" means roughly 'Amanda covered up for Rudy' and most definitely does NOT mean 'Amanda did not cover up for Rudy'.

There is sound scientific forensic evidence Amanda washed off Mez blood: you don't think Marasca plucked it out of thin air?

Fact is her epithilial (_sp?) cells which gave rise to her DNA being found mixed in with Mez in the sink is due to the rubbing action of her hands. When Prof Conti claims DNA flies around willy nilly, - except for Rudy - he is taking you for a ride.

 

[Vixen]

You're banging your head against a brick wall here, I'm afraid. An overinvested zeal for guilt requires a rationalisation of the Marasca SC verdict and motivation. And the go-to rationalisation among pro-guilt commentators appears to be a toxic combination of any or all of: a) the Italian Supreme Court panel in this case was incompetent; b) the Italian Supreme Court panel in this case was corrupt/bent; c) the Italian Supreme Court panel in this case actually made a damning condemnation of Knox and Sollecito, but acquitted them on some sort of trifling technicality related to media intrusion and minor flaws in the investigation.

As you and I and every rational, objective commentator know very well, the Marasca SC ruling was unequivocal in stating that there was zero case to answer for either Knox or Sollecito. You and I and every rational, objective commentator also know very well that the Marasca SC panel in no way stated or implied that Knox "was at the murder scene", or that Sollecito was "at the murder scene", or that Knox "washed off Mez' Mez's Kercher's uncongealed blood", and that Marasca's rulings in respect of Knox's still-valid criminal slander conviction were wholly constrained and dictated by the fact that a) that whole area was strictly outside the remit of Marasca's court, and b) in any case, Marasca's court was entirely bound by the previous SC ruling on the criminal slander conviction (the ruling which will soon be addressed by the ECHR......).

That's a logical fallacy for a start, that you are the standard for rationality.

 

[Vixen]

You don't seem to understand how this sad little game is played, stacy! Look, I'll show you:

The Marasca SC panel clearly stated in its motivations report that it believed both Knox and Sollecito to be guilty of participation in Mez' Mez's Kercher's murder, but that it was acquitting them simply in order to appease the US Government and the Sollecito clan of the Italian and North American Mafias.

Wow look!! I just pulled lies and misinterpretations straight out of my backside and presented them as facts! It's even easier than I thought!!

Here come the logical fallacies thick and fast. #2: the straw man.