Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #13

[SMK]

Scott Peterson had his followers long after the trial, just like Knox.

Well, who did they think killed the wife and fetus? If Guede were not in the picture, I would feel less confident....not much less, but less...

 

[Nova]

First impressions count more, and how people conduct and present themselves counts when they are being judged in a courtroom. There is no way to get around that.

So which is it? The Italian jury was composed of geniuses (just like Italian cops) whose decision is infallible? Or they were a bunch of idiots who convicted a girl of murder because she wore a T-shirt?

Since all activity in the apt ceased, like the movie that ran out but was not turned off, at 9:10 PM, and the alibi is that they slept until 10 AM, what were they doing? Their alibi was that they smoked pot, watched a movie, ate dinner, etc. through the evening until late ... but all of that happened prior to 9:10 PM. What did they do after 9:10? Sleep for 13 hours? Stare at each other with no music?

Apparently, you've never smoked hash. Sleeping for 13 hours is not hard to believe. Apparently, you've never been 20-years-old and in a new relationship. Having sex for 13 hours isn't impossible. Put the two (sleep and sex) together and it's no big deal to account for the 13 hours.

But BTW, I don't believe the 9:10 PM time. That's just another one of ILE's "adjustments" (i.e., lies) to fit their round peg into a square hole.

 

[otto]

Yes, the USA has become quite scary. I do not like a lot of what I am finding out. As per Mr. Fisher ( I understand he writes under a pseudonym, as do many authors) I do not think Ms. Vogt considers this libelous, just his opinion. You ought to see the nasty, sexual, and libelous things PMF posts about Fisher et al. Including Jim Wales of Wikipedia: They said he was only reviewing the Kercher Murder page in order to gain sex with Knox. Ah, the internet is a cesspool of striving egos.....:sick:

The way it comes across is that the "Bruce Fisher" blogger (from the Injustice in Perugia site that is so frequently quoted on this forum) is a bit crazed about journalists publishing information relevant to the upcoming trial. He does everything he can to discredit and ridicule a journalist that attended, and reported on, the trial. Is that really an opinion that deserves to be copied and spread around the internet? It strikes me as an angry and emotional opinion that is damaging to the reputations and careers of legitimate journalists - ones that have real names.

 

[Nova]

I would respectfully request that if you must make the following statements: "you really are posting utter nonsense" that you put it in a PM. Thanks in advance.

That particular post merited that critique. You may sue me for slander or alert a moderator. But in quoting me, you left out the word "here." I was trying to indicate I meant that particular post by "here" and not all of your posts, but I now realize that "here" could mean "at WebSleuths" or "in this thread in its entirety," etc. And for that much I do apologize.


ETA, otto, you've got to admit that was a silly thing to write in a case where the already convicted murderer fled the country. I think this is one of those times when one laughs at one's own foibles along with everybody else. You've caught me in similar mistakes from time to time.

 

[SMK]

That particular post merited that critique. You may sue me for slander or alert a moderator. But in quoting me, you left out the word "here." I was trying to indicate I meant that particular post by "here" and not all of your posts, but I now realize that "here" could mean "at WebSleuths" or "in this thread in its entirety," etc. And for that much I do apologize.

I think this is more than reasonable. We all find in Otto a formidable opponent, but sometimes we think he spews nonsense, just as he often leads us to believe he thinks we are doing the same. Just part of opposing viewpoints; all just grist for the mill....

 

[SkewedView]

I would also like to note that a Jury's verdict can only be trusted if the facts were presented to them in good faith by all parties concerned, and only if the presiding Judge betrays no bias towards either the Prosecution or the Defense.

Of course, given that systems like those of the US and Italy give ridiculous protections to LE and Prosecutors that engage in misconduct during trials, that the average citizen assumes that arrest=guilt and of course the ever-present confusion amongst Jurors regarding burden of proof...well, let's just say I'm not inclined to put a great amount of faith in the verdicts handed down by my 'peers'. No offense intended towards those of you who have served on Juries.

 

[SMK]

I would also like to note that a Jury's verdict can only be trusted if the facts were presented to them in good faith by all parties concerned, and only if the presiding Judge betrays no bias towards either the Prosecution or the Defense.

Of course, given that systems like those of the US and Italy give ridiculous protections to LE and Prosecutors that engage in misconduct during trials, that the average citizen assumes that arrest=guilt and of course the ever-present confusion amongst Jurors regarding burden of proof...well, let's just say I'm not inclined to put a great amount of faith in the verdicts handed down by my 'peers'. No offense intended towards those of you who have served on Juries.

Well said. Could not agree more.

 

[Nova]

The way it comes across is that the "Bruce Fisher" blogger (from the Injustice in Perugia site that is so frequently quoted on this forum) is a bit crazed about journalists publishing information relevant to the upcoming trial. He does everything he can to discredit and ridicule a journalist that attended, and reported on, the trial. Is that really an opinion that deserves to be copied and spread around the internet? It strikes me as an angry and emotional opinion that is damaging to the reputations and careers of legitimate journalists - ones that have real names.

You don't seem American to me, otto. Our system is based on the premise that the best safeguard of truth and good ideas is free speech, in which the good ideas will rise above the bad. Yes, we have civil torts against libel and slander, but we try to reserve such actions for extreme cases.

If Fisher's blogs are "angry and emotional", as you claim, then how can they damage "the reputations and careers of legitimate journalists" -- whose work presumably speaks for itself?

 

[otto]

Murderers also flee, try to commit suicide, resist arrest, turn themselves in, calmly wait for police to arrive while covered in blood, wander the area aimlessly with a gun, go dancing, etc etc...

Arguing that AK not fleeing indicates guilt because the boogeyman Scott Peterson stuck around simply doesn't match up with the reality that killers all react differently after a murder...as do innocent people who find themselves targeted by LE.

As for her 'trying to misdirect LE' because they 'had evidence against her' - recall that during those 'interviews', LE did NOT have evidence against her (forensics weren't in yet)...they just TOLD her that they did, which is SOP for police in interrogations, a strategy that leads to as many false confessions as real ones, thus why LE always holds back info that only they and the killer would know, to separate the real confessions from the false ones. The fact that AK's 'confession' had absolutely no resemblance to what the forensic evidence did reveal should have been a big red flag.

See coverage of the investigation into the 'Yogurt Shop Murders' for a good look at how easy it is to illicit false confessions. See also coverage of the Stephanie Crowe murder for a good look at a case with disturbing similarities (with regards to the flawed investigation and questionable behavior on the part of LE) to this one (I have absolutely no doubt that Stephanie's brother and his friends would be rotting in prison right now if his lawyer hadn't found the key evidence that LE missed, which led to the real killer).

If you would like links etc to anything in this post, please ask and I will endeavor to provide them in a semi-timely fashion (no time at the moment, have to get my daughter to bed and walk the puppy). Sorry to just jump into the thread like this, but I've been watching it for a while now and just couldn't keep my big mouth shut any longer.

There was evidence against the pair on Nov 5 indicating that they were not truthful about their alibis. They claimed that they slept until 10 AM, but cell phone records proved that Raffaele was up at 6 AM. The pair claimed that they had dinner towards midnight (10 or 11), but cell phone records and information from Raffaele's father proved that untrue. These small details and small lies turned into big lies when they were asked to explain themselves.

 

[Nova]

I would also like to note that a Jury's verdict can only be trusted if the facts were presented to them in good faith by all parties concerned, and only if the presiding Judge betrays no bias towards either the Prosecution or the Defense.

Of course, given that systems like those of the US and Italy give ridiculous protections to LE and Prosecutors that engage in misconduct during trials, that the average citizen assumes that arrest=guilt and of course the ever-present confusion amongst Jurors regarding burden of proof...well, let's just say I'm not inclined to put a great amount of faith in the verdicts handed down by my 'peers'. No offense intended towards those of you who have served on Juries.

What SV said!

And in Italy, the judge actually sits on the jury to make sure the jury tows the line.

(BTW, I've served on three juries and no offense taken. The two juries that went to deliberations were actually quite good, but one hears and reads all sorts of horror stories. There used to be a thread here at WS.)

 

[SMK]

You don't seem American to me, otto. Our system is based on the premise that the best safeguard of truth and good ideas is free speech, in which the good ideas will rise above the bad. Yes, we have civil torts against libel and slander, but we try to reserve such actions for extreme cases.

If Fisher's blogs are "angry and emotional", as you claim, then how can they damage "the reputations and careers of legitimate journalists" -- whose work presumably speaks for itself?

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[otto]

I won't argue your criticisms of the U.S. criminal justice system. I agree it is far from perfect.

Yes, in theory, Andrea Vogt can sue Bruce Fisher for the remarks above. (She can even sue you and WS for repeating them here.) But it will be her burden to prove (a) that Fisher's charges are untrue; and, much harder, (b) that he knew or reasonably should have known they were untrue when he published them. The latter is a very high burden as it isn't easy (except in cases of confessed corruption) to prove that someone knew something other than what they said or wrote.

Then she will have to prove she was harmed by his criticisms in a way and to a degree that can be compensated by a monetary award. I don't have statistics on the subject, but it isn't my impression that U.S. courts are as free as Italian ones in calculating damages for slander and libel against public figures.

(FWIW, the burden of proof is lower when it is claimed a truly "private" citizen has been libeled or slandered. But I don't believe Vogt or Fisher could claim to be "private citizens" after publishing material under their names (even if they use pseudonyms).)

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. The above is my understanding based on what I've read of libel and slander cases.

Thanks. It's unfortunate that complaints of slander are not more often pursued in the US as it would help to put some of the Italian cases (police V Knox) in perspective. Instead, we hear about how people in the US have so much freedom of speech and people in other countries don't have that privilege. What Andrea is experiencing as a result of the "Bruce Fisher" ridicule strikes me as "freedom of speech" gone crazy.

 

[otto]

TOD shortly after midnight does not square with the digestive process, according to MK's last meal. It just does not. No way, no how. TOD was earlier. I read myself silly on this issue.

My understanding is that stomach contents is not a reliable measure of time of death. What were Meredith's stomach contents? She had just eaten a meal of pizza plus dessert with friends shortly before arriving home at 9 PM, yet I only recall something about a mushroom.

 

[SMK]

Thanks. It's unfortunate that complaints of slander are not more often pursued in the US as it would help to put some of the Italian cases (police V Knox) in perspective. Instead, we hear about how people in the US have so much freedom of speech and people in other countries don't have that privilege. What Andrea is experiencing as a result of the "Bruce Fisher" ridicule strikes me as "freedom of speech" gone crazy.

Are you American, Otto? I am asking earnestly? What you see as "Freedom of Speech gone crazy" is actually the free and unfettered exchange of ideas proposed by John Stuart Mill in his treatise on liberty, and the action of the great founding father James Madison's precept that "ambition shall counter ambition".

 

[Nova]

Thanks. It's unfortunate that complaints of slander are not more often pursued in the US as it would help to put some of the Italian cases (police V Knox) in perspective. Instead, we hear about how people in the US have so much freedom of speech and people in other countries don't have that privilege. What Andrea is experiencing as a result of the "Bruce Fisher" ridicule strikes me as "freedom of speech" gone crazy.

Every freedom has its price. There are some here who think we should adopt the English rule and ban all publicity until the trial; but that would violate our system's basic assumption that publicity keeps the government in check.

I don't want to give you the impression we have no slander or libel cases here. We do. It's just that the bar with public figures is very high--which is why you'll find so many American celebrities (going back at least to Liberace suing in the 1950s for being called gay) suing in England, where the burden is on the defendant to prove his statement was true, rather than on the plaintiff to prove it was knowably false.

 

[otto]

From which of the fried hard drives did all that info come?

Apparently Raffaele's harddrive.

 

[SkewedView]

There was evidence against the pair on Nov 5 indicating that they were not truthful about their alibis. They claimed that they slept until 10 AM, but cell phone records proved that Raffaele was up at 6 AM. The pair claimed that they had dinner towards midnight (10 or 11), but cell phone records and information from Raffaele's father proved that untrue. These small details and small lies turned into big lies when they were asked to explain themselves.

The problem with that is that completely innocent people have a hard time accounting for their activities on any given night - thus why every attorney worth his salt will tell you to never talk to cops (other than to ask if you are being detained, to refuse searches, and to clearly ask for your lawyer if you are detained of course). Even if you are totally innocent, if you talk to them long enough, they will trip you up on discrepancies that they will assume are lies. The fact that humans simply don't track average events in their memories like a computer does just doesn't come into LE's radar on this issue, and that's alright, to a degree, as they are trained to see everyone as a potential suspect. For them, contradiction=guilt. This is why the system in the US theoretically disallows such 'suspicious' discrepancies from being used to get warrants, indictments etc, because the simple truth is that they are an unreliable weathervane to use when attempting to ascertain guilt.

Simply put, if you asked me what I did last night, at what times, I would be at a total loss, and look guilty as hell if I tried to figure it out on the spot.

 

[otto]

Well, who did they think killed the wife and fetus? If Guede were not in the picture, I would feel less confident....not much less, but less...

Rudy didn't make the bloody barefoot print on the bathmat, so he didn't act alone. Who made that print, and who cleaned up the portion of the print that would have been on the floor?

 

[Nova]

The problem with that is that completely innocent people have a hard time accounting for their activities on any given night - thus why every attorney worth his salt will tell you to never talk to cops (other than to ask if you are being detained, to refuse searches, and to clearly ask for your lawyer if you are detained of course). Even if you are totally innocent, if you talk to them long enough, they will trip you up on discrepancies that they will assume are lies. The fact that humans simply don't track average events in their memories like a computer does just doesn't come into LE's radar on this issue, and that's alright, to a degree, as they are trained to see everyone as a potential suspect. For them, contradiction=guilt. This is why the system in the US theoretically disallows such 'suspicious' discrepancies from being used to get warrants, indictments etc, because the simple truth is that they are an unreliable weathervane to use when attempting to ascertain guilt.

Simply put, if you asked me what I did last night, at what times, I would be at a total loss, and look guilty as hell if I tried to figure it out on the spot.

I think we can assume "completely innocent people" are especially likely to make mistakes as to their past activities because, being innocent, they had no reason to keep track of everything they did.

 

[Nova]

Rudy didn't make the bloody barefoot print on the bathmat, so he didn't act alone. Who made that print, and who cleaned up the portion of the print that would have been on the floor?

I don't know that Rudy didn't make the print. But the investigation was so sloppy, we don't really know whether there was someone else in the cottage that night or not.