Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Bill Williams]

Stephanie Kercher believes what she wants to believe. And, she seems to want to believe in what brings the most attention to Stephanie Kercher. I think that making veiled allusions to Knox's culpability probably gives Stephanie the same chemical rush that Kim Kardashian gets when she posts a picture of her butt.

All to do with a Daily Mail piece!? Give me a break. We know nothing about what she believes if you want to drag in the DM. Sheesh.

 

[Diocletus]

All to do with a Daily Mail piece!? Give me a break. We know nothing about what she believes if you want to drag in the DM. Sheesh.

It's really her entire body of work, capped by the DM piece, which is entirely consistent with the rest. She/they write letters timed to prejudice court proceedings, they hold press conferences for same, they wrongly criticize, they cast aspersions, they hire and let loose unethical lawyers and experts. And, when things don't go their way they adopt this passive-aggressive "we don't know what happened [but obviously Knox was involved]" tact.

All in the name of wrong. And, all said to be to garner attention "for Meredith". But she is dead, and so really, the attention is for themselves.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's really her entire body of work, capped by the DM piece, which is entirely consistent with the rest. She/they write letters timed to prejudice court proceedings, they hold press conferences for same, they wrongly criticize, they cast aspersions, they hire and let loose unethical lawyers and experts. And, when things don't go their way they adopt this passive-aggressive "we don't know what happened [but obviously Knox was involved]" tact.

All in the name of wrong. And, all said to be to garner attention "for Meredith". But she is dead, and so really, the attention is for themselves.

Really? Really!?

It's bad enough trying to reconstruct someone's beliefs about something through mainstream media.

But now to provide a reference for the DM piece, one says that the DM is consistent with the rest......

...... and that's supposed to be a positive reference for the coverage!?

No one has a clue what the Kerchers have gone through or what they think. The best source is Mr. Kercher Snr's book, and what he makes plain in that is the excruciating pain of losing a precious soul, as well as being beholden to the prosecution/Maresca for what's what in the crime.

As for the others in the family, c'mon dude, lets not assemble a caricature the way the guilters have done it all these years.

Really!?

 

[Diocletus]

Really? Really!?

It's bad enough trying to reconstruct someone's beliefs about something through mainstream media.

But now to provide a reference for the DM piece, one says that the DM is consistent with the rest......

...... and that's supposed to be a positive reference for the coverage!?

No one has a clue what the Kerchers have gone through or what they think. The best source is Mr. Kercher Snr's book, and what he makes plain in that is the excruciating pain of losing a precious soul, as well as being beholden to the prosecution/Maresca for what's what in the crime.

As for the others in the family, c'mon dude, lets not assemble a caricature the way the guilters have done it all these years.

Really!?

I'm not really getting your point about mainstream media/DM. I think that the Kerchers have said/done (and not said/done) enough over the years to give us good context.

Here's the problem: the Kerchers wrongfully accused two people, and wrongful accusation is a kind of strict liability offense. They don't get a mulligan just because they are (or were) grieving. The fact that they don't have the decency to come forward, and instead, insist on this continuing with their passive-aggressive approach to Knox/Sollecito tells me all I need to know.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm not really getting your point about mainstream media/DM. I think that the Kerchers have said/done (and not said/done) enough over the years to give us good context.

Here's the problem: the Kerchers wrongfully accused two people, and wrongful accusation is a kind of strict liability offense. They don't get a mulligan just because they are (or were) grieving. The fact that they don't have the decency to come forward, and instead, insist on this continuing with their passive-aggressive approach to Knox/Sollecito tells me all I need to know.

Where I depart from this is that the Kerchers, by themselves, accused no one. They have also made it clear that the Italian system is baffling. They have also said what they regard as obvious - they do not wish the prosecution of innocent people.

They've said all that while having Maresca as their main source of information - and until late 2011 had no reason whatsoever to doubt his version. In 2013 his version was "vindicated" by (what I regard as) a corrupt ISC ruling. Even the 2015 ISC ruling which corrected things for Amanda and Raffaele, left the Kerchers' high and dry.

It's a mystery to me why any of us need to fill in their narrative for them, with the worst interpretations of things where there are plenty of other interpretations available.

 

[sept79]

It's really her entire body of work, capped by the DM piece, which is entirely consistent with the rest. She/they write letters timed to prejudice court proceedings, they hold press conferences for same, they wrongly criticize, they cast aspersions, they hire and let loose unethical lawyers and experts. And, when things don't go their way they adopt this passive-aggressive "we don't know what happened [but obviously Knox was involved]" tact.
.
.
.

My grievance with the Kerchers is that their ‘dignified silence’ was anything but dignified and silent. As Diocletus posted above, the family repeatedly wrote letters and held press conferences timed to prejudice court proceedings against Knox/Sollecito.

I can’t imagine the grief which the family has experienced, but their attempts to sway court decisions rubbed me wrong at the time and still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Diocletus]

Where I depart from this is that the Kerchers, by themselves, accused no one.

Is "by themselves" intended to exclude Maresca, their lawyer? He can't be separated from them, because he was their agent. Even without him, I think they engaged in speech/conduct that arises to an accusation.

 

[Bill Williams]

Is "by themselves" intended to exclude Maresca, their lawyer? He can't be separated from them, because he was their agent. Even without him, I think they engaged in speech/conduct that arises to an accusation.

These three sentences are contradictory.

 

[Sonia]

It occurs to me that maybe the Kerchers really need money. Coming from modest means, just like those of Amanda's family, how would they ever have paid for almost eight years of legal expenses?

Unless somehow their Italian lawyers did the work pro bono, or wrote off some of the charges out of compassion, the Kerchers must have an enormous balance to pay. Or were the lawyers perhaps working on a contingency basis, to share in the awards that a final conviction would bring?

John Kercher said that all the proceeds from his book would go to a charitable foundation set up in Meredith's name. So he could not use those funds to pay the lawyers, surely.

So as far as fund-raising goes, maybe the only way they can do it is interviews like the ones the Kercher children and their parents have given over the years to media outlets such as the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, Australian newspapers, Porta a Porta, the Daily Mirror, The Mail on Sunday, The Sun, RAI, The Times, Cosmopolitan, Sky News, Channel 5, and of course The Daily Beast and Newsweek ("as told to Barbie Nadeau").

Does anybody know if their Italian lawyers were willing to forgo some of their pay, or are the Kerchers on the hook for all of it?

 

[LondonJohn]

It occurs to me that maybe the Kerchers really need money. Coming from modest means, just like those of Amanda's family, how would they ever have paid for almost eight years of legal expenses?

Unless somehow their Italian lawyers did the work pro bono, or wrote off some of the charges out of compassion, the Kerchers must have an enormous balance to pay. Or were the lawyers perhaps working on a contingency basis, to share in the awards that a final conviction would bring?

John Kercher said that all the proceeds from his book would go to a charitable foundation set up in Meredith's name. So he could not use those funds to pay the lawyers, surely.

So as far as fund-raising goes, maybe the only way they can do it is interviews like the ones the Kercher children and their parents have given over the years to media outlets such as the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, Australian newspapers, Porta a Porta, the Daily Mirror, The Mail on Sunday, The Sun, RAI, The Times, Cosmopolitan, Sky News, Channel 5, and of course The Daily Beast and Newsweek ("as told to Barbie Nadeau").

Does anybody know if their Italian lawyers were willing to forgo some of their pay, or are the Kerchers on the hook for all of it?

My own take is that the Kercher family get pretty much a free pass, unless they had ever tried either to actively subvert the judicial process or to significantly smear Knox or Sollecito. I don't think they've done either. I think some of what various family members have said has been a little unfortunate, but I think the combination of grief, bewilderment and the unwelcome glare of the public spotlight could make virtually anyone say and do things similar to the things said by the Kerchers over the years since November 2007.

In addition, I feel sad and slightly angry that the Kerchers were so horribly misled by Mignini and Marasca at probably their most vulnerable time period (the year following the murder). I think the prosecution theory was probably cemented into their mindsets during that time, and that (as others have pointed out), the subsequent acquittals have caused considerable cognitive dissonance. I suspect that most of the Kercher family will forever believe that Knox and Sollecito played some part in Meredith's murder, and I don't think they should be blamed for that - the blame, IMO, rests squarely with Mignini and Maresca.

Lastly, and without wishing to sound callous on the issue, it really doesn't matter one iota what the Kercher family think about what happened, especially if one believes (as I do) that they were convinced of a certain (incorrect) theory of the crime at the time when they were most vulnerable. When I say "it doesn't matter", I don't mean that the Kerchers' pain isn't important or distressing. What I mean is that the Kerchers' point of view on what really happened really doesn't carry much importance or validity to anyone who's seriously trying to get as close as possible to the truth from all the available evidence (and lack of evidence).

 

[Samson]

My own take is that the Kercher family get pretty much a free pass, unless they had ever tried either to actively subvert the judicial process or to significantly smear Knox or Sollecito. I don't think they've done either. I think some of what various family members have said has been a little unfortunate, but I think the combination of grief, bewilderment and the unwelcome glare of the public spotlight could make virtually anyone say and do things similar to the things said by the Kerchers over the years since November 2007.

In addition, I feel sad and slightly angry that the Kerchers were so horribly misled by Mignini and Marasca at probably their most vulnerable time period (the year following the murder). I think the prosecution theory was probably cemented into their mindsets during that time, and that (as others have pointed out), the subsequent acquittals have caused considerable cognitive dissonance. I suspect that most of the Kercher family will forever believe that Knox and Sollecito played some part in Meredith's murder, and I don't think they should be blamed for that - the blame, IMO, rests squarely with Mignini and Maresca.

Lastly, and without wishing to sound callous on the issue, it really doesn't matter one iota what the Kercher family think about what happened, especially if one believes (as I do) that they were convinced of a certain (incorrect) theory of the crime at the time when they were most vulnerable. When I say "it doesn't matter", I don't mean that the Kerchers' pain isn't important or distressing. What I mean is that the Kerchers' point of view on what really happened really doesn't carry much importance or validity to anyone who's seriously trying to get as close as possible to the truth from all the available evidence (and lack of evidence).

All that ignores the egregious sins of omission they all commit by abjectly refusing to take responsibility for their own education, and accordingly, since many would justifiably assume them to be best educated, they end by doing irreparable damage to the reputation of Meredith's former friend.
TJMK is living proof of this.

 

[LondonJohn]

All that ignores the egregious sins of omission they all commit by abjectly refusing to take responsibility for their own education, and accordingly, since many would justifiably assume them to be best educated, they end by doing irreparable damage to the reputation of Meredith's former friend.
TJMK is living proof of this.

Firstly, I don't think you can pin any responsibility whatsoever upon the Kerchers for cesspits like TJMK or the PMFs. I think those sites are run and populated by weird little obsessives, almost none of whom (if any at all) have any connection to Meredith Kercher or her family, and all of whom have their own warped reasons for continuing their "Justice for Meredith" charade. I wouldn't suspect for one moment that the Kercher family either exercises any control over those sites, or explicitly endorses those sites in any way (if the Kercher family were publicly carrying on an endorsement of any of those sites, I'd change my view - and I don't count John Kercher's acknowledgement in his book as any form of endorsement as such).

Secondly, I repeat my assertion that the Kerchers get pretty much a free pass on this. I believe they were led into an extremely strong emotional and intellectual commitment to a certain narrative of this crime, conducted by Mignini and Maresca. And the combination of this, their grief, and their (perhaps understandable) inability to look at the evidence dispassionately and with a fully open mind, has IMO resulted in their current cognitive dissonance. I don't believe that they should be in any way criticised for that. Mignini and Maresca, on the other hand.....

(I also, incidentally, believe the Kerchers should have been given far more assistance by the UK Foreign Office (FCO) - not only in terms of financial and logistical assistance in respect of their presence in Italy, but also in terms of consular advice and counselling support.)

 

[Samson]

Firstly, I don't think you can pin any responsibility whatsoever upon the Kerchers for cesspits like TJMK or the PMFs. I think those sites are run and populated by weird little obsessives, almost none of whom (if any at all) have any connection to Meredith Kercher or her family, and all of whom have their own warped reasons for continuing their "Justice for Meredith" charade. I wouldn't suspect for one moment that the Kercher family either exercises any control over those sites, or explicitly endorses those sites in any way (if the Kercher family were publicly carrying on an endorsement of any of those sites, I'd change my view - and I don't count John Kercher's acknowledgement in his book as any form of endorsement as such).

Secondly, I repeat my assertion that the Kerchers get pretty much a free pass on this. I believe they were led into an extremely strong emotional and intellectual commitment to a certain narrative of this crime, conducted by Mignini and Maresca. And the combination of this, their grief, and their (perhaps understandable) inability to look at the evidence dispassionately and with a fully open mind, has IMO resulted in their current cognitive dissonance. I don't believe that they should be in any way criticised for that. Mignini and Maresca, on the other hand.....

(I also, incidentally, believe the Kerchers should have been given far more assistance by the UK Foreign Office (FCO) - not only in terms of financial and logistical assistance in respect of their presence in Italy, but also in terms of consular advice and counselling support.)

But my understanding without ability to cite right now is that John Kercher did regard TJMK as an authoritative resource. I stand to be corrected of course. I do find the study of families embraced by the police intriguing, I should suspend judgement until becoming an unwitting victim myself, but I know a local case where the damage went deep enough for a brother of a wrongly accused to change his surname, and to vilify him as a monster to this day.
I would also be curious if the British girls have ever commented further.

 

[Bill Williams]

My own take is that the Kercher family get pretty much a free pass, unless they had ever tried either to actively subvert the judicial process or to significantly smear Knox or Sollecito. I don't think they've done either. I think some of what various family members have said has been a little unfortunate, but I think the combination of grief, bewilderment and the unwelcome glare of the public spotlight could make virtually anyone say and do things similar to the things said by the Kerchers over the years since November 2007.

In addition, I feel sad and slightly angry that the Kerchers were so horribly misled by Mignini and Marasca at probably their most vulnerable time period (the year following the murder). I think the prosecution theory was probably cemented into their mindsets during that time, and that (as others have pointed out), the subsequent acquittals have caused considerable cognitive dissonance. I suspect that most of the Kercher family will forever believe that Knox and Sollecito played some part in Meredith's murder, and I don't think they should be blamed for that - the blame, IMO, rests squarely with Mignini and Maresca.

Lastly, and without wishing to sound callous on the issue, it really doesn't matter one iota what the Kercher family think about what happened, especially if one believes (as I do) that they were convinced of a certain (incorrect) theory of the crime at the time when they were most vulnerable. When I say "it doesn't matter", I don't mean that the Kerchers' pain isn't important or distressing. What I mean is that the Kerchers' point of view on what really happened really doesn't carry much importance or validity to anyone who's seriously trying to get as close as possible to the truth from all the available evidence (and lack of evidence).

Agreed.

 

[Bill Williams]

Secondly, I repeat my assertion that the Kerchers get pretty much a free pass on this. I believe they were led into an extremely strong emotional and intellectual commitment to a certain narrative of this crime, conducted by Mignini and Maresca. And the combination of this, their grief, and their (perhaps understandable) inability to look at the evidence dispassionately and with a fully open mind, has IMO resulted in their current cognitive dissonance. I don't believe that they should be in any way criticised for that. Mignini and Maresca, on the other hand.....

(I also, incidentally, believe the Kerchers should have been given far more assistance by the UK Foreign Office (FCO) - not only in terms of financial and logistical assistance in respect of their presence in Italy, but also in terms of consular advice and counselling support.)

One can only repeat - that for four years they had no reason to doubt Mignini or Maresca. Indeed the re-conviction in 2014 simply seemed to reinforce that trust.

Maresca, presumably, was the one who informed the Kerchers that the 2015 exonerations were final. Whereas some of us would have loved to revel in Maresca's own dis-ease in doing that, the Kerchers should be left alone.

 

[Planigale]

Firstly, I don't think you can pin any responsibility whatsoever upon the Kerchers for cesspits like TJMK or the PMFs. I think those sites are run and populated by weird little obsessives, almost none of whom (if any at all) have any connection to Meredith Kercher or her family, and all of whom have their own warped reasons for continuing their "Justice for Meredith" charade. I wouldn't suspect for one moment that the Kercher family either exercises any control over those sites, or explicitly endorses those sites in any way (if the Kercher family were publicly carrying on an endorsement of any of those sites, I'd change my view - and I don't count John Kercher's acknowledgement in his book as any form of endorsement as such).

Secondly, I repeat my assertion that the Kerchers get pretty much a free pass on this. I believe they were led into an extremely strong emotional and intellectual commitment to a certain narrative of this crime, conducted by Mignini and Maresca. And the combination of this, their grief, and their (perhaps understandable) inability to look at the evidence dispassionately and with a fully open mind, has IMO resulted in their current cognitive dissonance. I don't believe that they should be in any way criticised for that. Mignini and Maresca, on the other hand.....

(I also, incidentally, believe the Kerchers should have been given far more assistance by the UK Foreign Office (FCO) - not only in terms of financial and logistical assistance in respect of their presence in Italy, but also in terms of consular advice and counselling support.)

I have not read Mr. Kercher's book so this may be covered. Normally the Metropolitan police would offer victim support in this scenario and police liaison for the overseas murder of a UK citizen, (see the very active involvement in some oversees investigations e.g. McCann, Needham). Did the family or Mignini turn down Met liaison? The investigation might have benefitted from advice or support from UK forensics or a major crime SIO from the Met.

 

[Diocletus]

My own take is that the Kercher family get pretty much a free pass, unless they had ever tried either to actively subvert the judicial process or to significantly smear Knox or Sollecito. I don't think they've done either. I think some of what various family members have said has been a little unfortunate, but I think the combination of grief, bewilderment and the unwelcome glare of the public spotlight could make virtually anyone say and do things similar to the things said by the Kerchers over the years since November 2007.

In addition, I feel sad and slightly angry that the Kerchers were so horribly misled by Mignini and Marasca at probably their most vulnerable time period (the year following the murder). I think the prosecution theory was probably cemented into their mindsets during that time, and that (as others have pointed out), the subsequent acquittals have caused considerable cognitive dissonance. I suspect that most of the Kercher family will forever believe that Knox and Sollecito played some part in Meredith's murder, and I don't think they should be blamed for that - the blame, IMO, rests squarely with Mignini and Maresca.

Lastly, and without wishing to sound callous on the issue, it really doesn't matter one iota what the Kercher family think about what happened, especially if one believes (as I do) that they were convinced of a certain (incorrect) theory of the crime at the time when they were most vulnerable. When I say "it doesn't matter", I don't mean that the Kerchers' pain isn't important or distressing. What I mean is that the Kerchers' point of view on what really happened really doesn't carry much importance or validity to anyone who's seriously trying to get as close as possible to the truth from all the available evidence (and lack of evidence).

I don't give them a free pass just because they hitched their wagon to the wrong horses. They have an independent obligation to verify and analyze, especially if they are going to participate as an adverse party in a criminal proceeding and make public statements impugning the defendants. They were attempting to aid and abet a wrongful prosecution, for Heaven's sake.

That's why I said it's a strict liability crime--they have no excuse for getting it wrong (unless they were coerced, which I don't think is the case). For them to continue with their passive-aggressive attacks on the defendants after acquittal is beyond the pale.

 

[Samson]

I don't give them a free pass just because they hitched their wagon to the wrong horses. They have an independent obligation to verify and analyze, especially if they are going to participate as an adverse party in a criminal proceeding and make public statements impugning the defendants. They were attempting to aid and abet a wrongful prosecution, for Heaven's sake.

That's why I said it's a strict liability crime--they have no excuse for getting it wrong (unless they were coerced, which I don't think is the case). For them to continue with their passive-aggressive attacks on the defendants after acquittal is beyond the pale.

That is precisely how I see it. Amanda has a standing criminal conviction and a four year served jail sentence that could cause her all manner of trouble travelling. What empathy are these people ever likely to show for this? Can she visit Italy at will like Stephanie?
Accusations have far reaching effects, Damien Echols for example has a triple murder conviction despite being factually exonerated, try travelling with that.
They need all the help they can get, including from their false accusers.

 

[js202]

Firstly, I don't think you can pin any responsibility whatsoever upon the Kerchers for cesspits like TJMK or the PMFs. I think those sites are run and populated by weird little obsessives, almost none of whom (if any at all) have any connection to Meredith Kercher or her family, and all of whom have their own warped reasons for continuing their "Justice for Meredith" charade. I wouldn't suspect for one moment that the Kercher family either exercises any control over those sites, or explicitly endorses those sites in any way (if the Kercher family were publicly carrying on an endorsement of any of those sites, I'd change my view - and I don't count John Kercher's acknowledgement in his book as any form of endorsement as such).

Secondly, I repeat my assertion that the Kerchers get pretty much a free pass on this. I believe they were led into an extremely strong emotional and intellectual commitment to a certain narrative of this crime, conducted by Mignini and Maresca. And the combination of this, their grief, and their (perhaps understandable) inability to look at the evidence dispassionately and with a fully open mind, has IMO resulted in their current cognitive dissonance. I don't believe that they should be in any way criticised for that. Mignini and Maresca, on the other hand.....

(I also, incidentally, believe the Kerchers should have been given far more assistance by the UK Foreign Office (FCO) - not only in terms of financial and logistical assistance in respect of their presence in Italy, but also in terms of consular advice and counselling support.)

I think this is a very kind and civilized viewpoint on the whole tragic affair, and should be commended.

 

[Diocletus]

I think this is a very kind and civilized viewpoint on the whole tragic affair, and should be commended.

If we are going to bring civility into the equation, then I think what is civilized is NOT having victims families participate as a party in the criminal prosecution of the alleged offender. Not only because of the prejudicial effect on the judge, jury and public perception, but also because they might be WRONG.