Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[Nova]

Believe me, Otto, I take this well into account. I have often asked myself if perhaps viewing too many 48 hours Mystery crime shows - wherein the station obviously has a vested interest in raising question upon question- has destroyed my faith in law enforcement and the judicial system. On the other hand, there have been many false convictions and we must be vigilant lest the powers that be grow apathetic. Also, why is there no one coming out in favor of Casey Anthony, saying she must have been set up by an illegal immigrant nanny? One would think many young single mothers would have an interest in deeming her railroaded, but seems it's the opposite....:waitasec:

Well put, SMK. I don't know where otto gets the idea that any of us commonly thinks LE puts innocent people in prison. I have said I've seen enough examples of LE "tunnel vision" to be concerned, but that has nothing to do with believing innocent people are commonly convicted on purpose.

For the record, I have no doubt O.J. killed Nicole, Scott Peterson killed Laci and, unless Baez comes up with something better than what he's presented thus far, Casey Anthony killed Caylee. Hell, I still think one of the Ramseys killed Jon-Benet and they were "cleared" by one D.A.

I was first drawn to this case because of a documentary that implied AK was convicted due to anti-Americanism, a notion I found (and still find) preposterous. I came to these threads looking for evidence of her guilt.

I'm still looking...

 

[Nova]

Well, I am not sure; I only know that it altered my perspective to learn of the few I did. And what about the movie "Conviction", starring Hilary Swank and based on a true story of a false conviction? And the McMartin case in the 1980s; appalling, and also turned into a movie; and the case where the prosecutor falsely convicted people of child molestation, and they were all overturned. And the corrupt judge in Pennsylvania, who convicted minors for kickbacks, and his were all thrown out. I will be truthful: I had not questioned the Knox case until I read Hendry and Fisher. But all of this put together has landed me in a quandry: it is like an unfaithful husband: Once doubts are raised, the whole thing seems to unravel. I simply lost faith in the justice system. And the Knox case became full of holes. It angered me, truthfully....

While you're making a list, here's a doozy:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-30-drug-program_x.htm



Over 40 people in Tula, TX wrongly convicted on the perjured testimony of one drug enforcement officer.

 

[Nova]

You should consider carefully researching Hendry and Fisher (esp. Fisher) before believing what they have to say. Read about Fisher's interactions with the teenager - that gives insight into what kind of character he is and his level of deception.

If you generally distrust the justice system, then I can understand your skepticism regarding this, and many cases. I tend to trust the justice system, even though on rare occasions mistakes are made. In recent years (post-DNA, and an awareness of tunnel vision), mistakes are very rarely made.

BBM: You have no way of knowing that. You might as well tell us the Virgin Mary cures baldness, since there's no way to prove that either.

 

[Nova]

Look at how many of those are eyewitness error! Thankfully, this murder investigation only involved one eyewitness, and his testimony is being reviewed during appeal ... and lucky for Amanda she wasn't tried in California. Furthermore, I think the whole world is aware of monkey business in the courts in California after the Polanski mess.

Huh? Polanski fled the jurisdiction and the country. How does that translate to "monkey business" in a 34-year-old case?

 

[SMK]

While you're making a list, here's a doozy:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-30-drug-program_x.htm



Over 40 people in Tula, TX wrongly convicted on the perjured testimony of one drug enforcement officer.

It is things like this - and worse - which have made the scales fall from my eyes.

 

[SkewedView]

It is a good thing to respect those who hold great power, but it is foolish to trust them unconditionally as they wield it. I find it ironic that even as the internet has come along offering a greater opportunity to inform themselves about abuses of power, fewer and fewer people seem willing to do so. It seems to me that the Statists of the nineteen-thirties are closer than ever to seeing their dreams come to fruition.

To put it in plainer words: Cop & prosecutor bashing etc is stupid and ignorant, but blind faith in the same is naive and dangerous. A healthy dose of skepticism towards those who can ruin lives so easily (and with no ill-intent involved at that!) should not be a cause for scorn. It should instead be appreciated as a duty of all good citizens. That said, it is all too easy to take said skepticism too far.

For my own part, I don't see Mignini etc as being malevolent in this case. Instead, I see a group of people who have fallen into the all too common trap of needing to believe, for their own mental health, that the people they went after must be guilty.

It is a very rare thing amongst LEAs and Prosecutors for them to admit it when they arrest/charge/convict the innocent, no matter how obvious it might be that they did. Many attribute such attitudes as being a sign of ill-intent, evil or conspiracies, but the fault really lies with the fact that without such absolute assurance of the correctness of their decisions, they end up in danger of doubting themselves into uselessness. Toss in the fact that the system so often won't let them go after those that they know are criminals...well, I quite understand where they are coming from, even if the results of this tendency can be horrifying.

 

[otto]

Huh? Polanski fled the jurisdiction and the country. How does that translate to "monkey business" in a 34-year-old case?

The California judge screwed up ... plain and simple ... a screw up like the many cases referenced by Malkmus.

 

[otto]

It is a good thing to respect those who hold great power, but it is foolish to trust them unconditionally as they wield it. I find it ironic that even as the internet has come along offering a greater opportunity to inform themselves about abuses of power, fewer and fewer people seem willing to do so. It seems to me that the Statists of the nineteen-thirties are closer than ever to seeing their dreams come to fruition.

To put it in plainer words: Cop & prosecutor bashing etc is stupid and ignorant, but blind faith in the same is naive and dangerous. A healthy dose of skepticism towards those who can ruin lives so easily (and with no ill-intent involved at that!) should not be a cause for scorn. It should instead be appreciated as a duty of all good citizens. That said, it is all too easy to take said skepticism too far.

For my own part, I don't see Mignini etc as being malevolent in this case. Instead, I see a group of people who have fallen into the all too common trap of needing to believe, for their own mental health, that the people they went after must be guilty.

It is a very rare thing amongst LEAs and Prosecutors for them to admit it when they arrest/charge/convict the innocent, no matter how obvious it might be that they did. Many attribute such attitudes as being a sign of ill-intent, evil or conspiracies, but the fault really lies with the fact that without such absolute assurance of the correctness of their decisions, they end up in danger of doubting themselves into uselessness. Toss in the fact that the system so often won't let them go after those that they know are criminals...well, I quite understand where they are coming from, even if the results of this tendency can be horrifying.

I understand that there are a lot of problems with the justice system in the US (that much is obvious from reading this thread), and that many people believe that because they read about crime and justice they are better equipped to determine guilt or innocence than those that specialize and practice in the field (that is obvious from the level of skepticism in the US justice system). Since the murder of Meredith Kercher happened in Italy with a justice system completely unlike the US system and involving people born in four different countries, I fail to see how problems in the US play a part.

My experience with the justice system is that those that practice in the field always do their best to do the right thing. Mistakes happen, but that is rare and not the norm. Mistakes are not intentional, and no one really believes that it is more fun to convict the innocent.

 

[SMK]

I'm finding that I'm wasting a lot of time pulling your words out of my mouth.
Please stop putting words in my mouth ... they do not fit.
Please go back and reread my post.
Those comments are not mine.
They are in fact posts by other people on this forum regarding people that disagree with jury decisions or believe that forum discussions are an accurate reflection of what the general population thinks about jury decisions.

Well, Otto, Nova said the implication was there, by posting them. I assumed you were implying that, too. Why else post it? As I said, I question myself constantly , always wondering if I am tipping too far in one direction ( I do this with all my general opinions in life) but the posters you quoted were harsh. I agree with Nova as per Scott Peterson, Ramseys, possibly Noura, and Casey Anthony: all guilty. The Knox case is different, and yes, because I read Fisher and Hendry.....:sigh:

 

[otto]

Well, Otto, Nova said the implication was there, by posting them. I assumed you were implying that, too. Why else post it? As I said, I question myself constantly , always wondering if I am tipping too far in one direction ( I do this with all my general opinions in life) but the posters you quoted were harsh. I agree with Nova as per Scott Peterson, Ramseys, possibly Noura, and Casey Anthony: all guilty. The Knox case is different, and yes, because I read Fisher and Hendry.....:sigh:

I think that if people fall into the error of tunnel vision (exclude everything that points to guilt in order to believe innocence), it becomes possible to believe that it's quite normal to doubt a verdict, to doubt the jury, to believe that everyone associated with the case is corrupt and that some people like to see innocent people in jail. I have read all of the above on this thread. I thought it would be refreshing to see how this same tunnel vision is perceived in the context of different cases that are discussed on this forum. The opinion I posted may not be expressed on this thread in relation to this case, but it is an opinion that is held by many.

 

[SkewedView]

I understand that there are a lot of problems with the justice system in the US (that much is obvious from reading this thread), and that many people believe that because they read about crime and justice they are better equipped to determine guilt or innocence than those that specialize and practice in the field (that is obvious from the level of skepticism in the US justice system). Since the murder of Meredith Kercher happened in Italy with a justice system completely unlike the US system and involving people born in four different countries, I fail to see how problems in the US play a part.

My experience with the justice system is that those that practice in the field always do their best to do the right thing. Mistakes happen, but that is rare and not the norm. Mistakes are not intentional, and no one really believes that it is more fun to convict the innocent.

Do you actually read my posts before you respond to them? Read my post again, carefully this time, and you will see that I never mentioned the US, and that I said that usually when the innocent are victimized by the system, there is no malevolence involved. Hell, I went to great lengths to explain why it happens and why I sympathize!

For someone who just said this:

I'm finding that I'm wasting a lot of time pulling your words out of my mouth.
Please stop putting words in my mouth ... they do not fit.
Please go back and reread my post.

well, kettle, meet pot.



And mistakes happen far too often in all Justice systems. It is an inevitability, because the people who run the system are just that: people; imperfect, fallible human beings. That is why a free and unfettered press is so important: to uncover the mistakes made by those in power (that is why the EU Human Rights Court has chewed out Italy time and again for its libel/slander/defamation laws).



I should also mention that Amanda Knox trusted the authorities and the system just like you do - otherwise she would have listened to her mother (and the advice of every attorney on the planet) and talked to the police through the buffer of a lawyer. We've seen how well that trusting approach worked out for her.

 

[SMK]

I think that if people fall into the error of tunnel vision (exclude everything that points to guilt in order to believe innocence), it becomes possible to believe that it's quite normal to doubt a verdict, to doubt the jury, to believe that everyone associated with the case is corrupt and that some people like to see innocent people in jail. I have read all of the above on this thread. I thought it would be refreshing to see how this same tunnel vision is perceived in the context of different cases that are discussed on this forum. The opinion I posted may not be expressed on this thread in relation to this case, but it is an opinion that is held by many.

Granted, but I have sometimes seen the opposite (for example, on PMF): Everyone is so invested in guilt, that they simply will not look at counter-evidence, will not admit discrepancies and contradictions, will jump to conclusions; will not see that Mignini has a questionable record and was convicted of abuse of office; and believe anyone who is seeking for the truth and objective justice is some kind of "Knox groupie" or part of a vast "PR Machine"; that some of us love to see killers run free! I did a press release for Bruce Fisher of my own volition, and it was speculated on PMF that I must be enthralled with him, sexually interested, or getting massive amounts of money from him. In truth, I did it pro bono and because I was interested in objective justice. So it can all be turned around. Tunnel vision works both ways.

 

[SMK]

I understand that there are a lot of problems with the justice system in the US (that much is obvious from reading this thread), and that many people believe that because they read about crime and justice they are better equipped to determine guilt or innocence than those that specialize and practice in the field (that is obvious from the level of skepticism in the US justice system). Since the murder of Meredith Kercher happened in Italy with a justice system completely unlike the US system and involving people born in four different countries, I fail to see how problems in the US play a part.

My experience with the justice system is that those that practice in the field always do their best to do the right thing. Mistakes happen, but that is rare and not the norm. Mistakes are not intentional, and no one really believes that it is more fun to convict the innocent.

You should go read about the McMartin case in the 1980s, and if I can ever find it, I will link you to some stories of corrupt prosecutors who were putting people in prison knowing full well they were innocent. Not to mention the PA judge who was putting minors in juvenile facilities for profit. He was exposed.

I recall this prosecutor from the 1990s, because it was in the NJ area my husband and I were living in at the time:

Fraud, Flight and a Fatal Finale; Facing Prison, Flamboyant Ex-Prosecutor Shoots Himself

Nicholas Bissell always tried to write his own reviews. He advertised himself as New Jersey's toughest prosecutor. He called himself the "forfeiture king," seizing more riches from drug dealers in his sleepy, suburban county than his counterparts seized in urban areas. He was a master of flamboyant media events, posing with drugs, money and weapons.

Then the law caught up with this lawman. When prosecutors recommended 10 years in prison for his conviction on federal corruption charges earlier this year, Bissell called the sentence too harsh. Today, the former Somerset County prosecutor executed a sentence of his own, killing himself with a gunshot to the head in …http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-809721.html

See also:


Many U.S. citizens are afraid of the Judicial System, and rightfully so. We no longer enjoy “equal protection” under the law. Yet, hope is not lost. The US~Observer's plan to fight this inequality can and will win, with your help.

There is one phrase inscribed on the Supreme Court Building in Washington D.C., “Equal Justice Under Law.” Unfortunately, the high court held in Imbler v Pachtman (1976) that prosecutors are immune to civil lawsuits, while they are preforming their jobs, even if they commit illegal acts.

Prosecutors, agencies, etc., routinely file false charges against innocent individuals. In fact, in over 90% of criminal cases, prosecutors stack charges and then force plea-bargains, which is absolute extortion. Prosecutors needlessly harass innocent people, and use the mainstream media to enhance their cases, thereby tampering with the jury pool. They violate rights and break the law, and, thanks to the Supreme Court ruling, we have had no way to hold them legally accountable.

The logic behind the Supreme Court ruling was that it would keep Prosecutors from having to defend themselves against unwarranted and frivolous lawsuits - suits designed to muddy the system. But, what their ruling accomplished was to create a class of citizenry who is above the law and can act in any fashion without fear of reprisal or accountability - in essence they destroyed the one covenant that the founders held dear, and there is no longer equal justice under law in America.http://www.awrm.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=22;t=000961;p=0

 

[SMK]

@Otto:

Notwithstanding Giuliano Mignini's own conviction of unlawful activities and abuse of high office, there are many investigations of prosecutors afoot in the US:

One of the most corrupt Federal prosecutors in the United States was Michael Rubenstein practicing in Tampa, Florida

Michael Rubenstein,
Assistant Federal Prosecutor in Tampa, Florida just how evil Rubenstein is and how the 11 th Circuit Court of Appeals covered it up and exactly what the US Justice Department does to corrupt evil prosecutors
Paul O'Brien, Assistant Federal Prosecutor in Memphis, Tenn.

Jennifer Bragg Jones is a corrupt evil FDA attorney who was appointed an Assistant Special Prosecutor for the Government against Kimball. review Kimball's rigged conviction

A multitude of corrupt Evil Federal Prosecutors:
A few years ago the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette did a thorough investigative report about an abundance of corrupt evil Federal prosecutors putting innocent people in Federal prison.
http://www.discovery-experimental.com/corruptemployees/federalprosecutors/index.htm

 

[SMK]

@ Otto: I am afraid I have read too much to believe your assertion that mistakes are not done on purpose and corruption very rare:

Special Report: The Pittsburgh Gazette
"Win at All Costs"

Hundreds of times during the past 10 years, federal agents and prosecutors have pursued justice by breaking the law.

They lied, hid evidence, distorted facts, engaged in cover-ups, paid for perjury and set up innocent people in a relentless effort to win indictments, guilty pleas and convictions, a two-year Post-Gazette investigation found.

Rarely were these federal officials punished for their misconduct. Rarely did they admit their conduct was wrong.

New laws and court rulings that encourage federal law enforcement officers to press the boundaries of their power while providing few safeguards against abuse fueled their actions.

Victims of this misconduct sometimes lost their jobs, assets and even families. Some remain in prison because prosecutors withheld favorable evidence or allowed fabricated testimony. Some criminals walk free as a reward for conspiring with the government in its effort to deny others their rights.http://www.post-gazette.com/win/

See also: Prosecutorial Corruption

We depend on prosecutors to pursue corruption, to punish it and not practice it. When they themselves become corrupt, the system breaks down altogether, as it did in the investigation and trial of Ted Stevens.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_susan_estrich/prosecutorial_corruption

 

[ChasingMoxie]

Why so much curiosity about whether people will change their minds if the verdict stands or is changed. Would you agree that they are guilty if the verdict remains the same?

So regardless of the verdict, your opinion would remain the same. Would it not be reasonable to assume that others, regardless of their current view, would also maintain their opinion regardless of the legal decision?

--snipped for clarity--

The difference is that those who feel AK and RS are innocent do not constantly back their assertions by restating the guilty verdict and claiming that the trial outcome trumps all other opinions. The verdict is consistently brought up and weighted as the strongest support for pro-guilt arguments; so yes, if the verdict should change, then everyone here who has based their viewpoint on the fact that AK and RS were initially convicted should change their mind with it.

Those with a stronger argument, that is, an argument based on facts as they were found, not as they were imagined or fabricated in kangaroo court, I expect them to maintain their same viewpoint regardless of trial outcome.

 

[Allusonz]

I think that if people fall into the error of tunnel vision (exclude everything that points to guilt in order to believe innocence), it becomes possible to believe that it's quite normal to doubt a verdict, to doubt the jury, to believe that everyone associated with the case is corrupt and that some people like to see innocent people in jail. I have read all of the above on this thread. I thought it would be refreshing to see how this same tunnel vision is perceived in the context of different cases that are discussed on this forum. The opinion I posted may not be expressed on this thread in relation to this case, but it is an opinion that is held by many.

I take great offense to this and will post more on this later as I am in the middle of an audit

 

[Allusonz]

Meredith / 'Today': Pg Perugia interview given to Mignini pm

Beware all a google translate

Yesterday Raffaele Sollecito's lawyer, Luca Maori, gave the Attorney General of Perugia , Giancarlo Costagliola, that in the process of Appeals for the murder of Meredith says the charge, supported by Manuela pm Mignini and comfortable, the sound of an interview by the same Mignini a British journalist. "An interview that might embarrass the prosecutor," says the magazine today, on newsstands tomorrow

http://translate.google.com/transla...a_intervista_pm_mignini,29937961.html&act=url

 

[SMK]

Meredith / 'Today': Pg Perugia interview given to Mignini pm

Beware all a google translate

Yesterday Raffaele Sollecito's lawyer, Luca Maori, gave the Attorney General of Perugia , Giancarlo Costagliola, that in the process of Appeals for the murder of Meredith says the charge, supported by Manuela pm Mignini and comfortable, the sound of an interview by the same Mignini a British journalist. "An interview that might embarrass the prosecutor," says the magazine today, on newsstands tomorrow

http://translate.google.com/transla...a_intervista_pm_mignini,29937961.html&act=url

Thanks for this. So basically saying Mignini made the choice to focus on AK and RS before doing the broader forensic research....

 

[dgfred]

So regardless of the verdict, your opinion would remain the same. Would it not be reasonable to assume that others, regardless of their current view, would also maintain their opinion regardless of the legal decision?

Personally, I've been flexible in terms of my opinion regarding legal decisions. I was of the opinion that Brad Cooper would be found not guilty due to the exclusion of rebuttal testimony regarding computer forensics. He was found guilty, but I think there is a strong case for appeal. I think he is probably guilty, but based on the information I had (which was only what was available through media and not all inclusive) I thought he would be found not guilty. Similarly, I recognize that the information I have regarding the murder of Meredith Kercher is restricted to some legal documents and some media information. Based on what I have read, I agree with the verdicts. If all the information were to change, I would reconsider my position.

For example, if there was an explanation for why Rudy, who in the past climbed onto the balcony to break into a second floor room, chose the more dangerous, visible method for entering the second floor room ... I would accept that perhaps he broke in that way. If there was an explanation for who made the footprints that clearly don't belong to Rudy, I would accept that there was someone other than Knox and Sollecito at the murder scene (I don't accept photoshopped monkey business with electronic files as implicating Rudy). If Knox and Sollecito had an explanation that could to be corroborated in any way about their activities between 8:45 and 6:10 AM, then I would accept their alibis. If Knox and Sollecito could explain why they lied about sleeping until 10 when evidence proves otherwise ... and if they could explain why their trip to Gubbio did not happen ... I would accept it. There is so much that I see as indicating guilt at this time.

I agree 100% with you regarding this case... and the B.Cooper case too.

With explanations/proof... not excuses/possibilites.