text:
Home NEWS	AMANDA KNOX: WE MUST ALL BE BELIEVERS NOW!
by Danielle_Simone April 9, 2015
written by Danielle_Simone April 9, 2015
When we were young, we all listened to fairy tales where the wicked were punished, and the good eventually prevailed. These tales are comforting, and assure us that in this world, justice will always triumph.
If we apply this logic to the Meredith Kercher case, can we be sure we have the right ending? Pardon the pun, but for me the jury is still out on this one.
The family of Meredith Kercher has said that the Italian justice system has failed after the country's top court annulled the conviction of Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, for murdering the British student.
In a statement outside the courtroom, the family's lawyer, Francesco Maresca, said: "This is not so much a defeat for the prosecution as a defeat for Italy's justice system. The judges said there is a lack of proof and whoever acted with Guede [the only person found guilty of the murder] has not been found."
The decision by a five-judge panel on March 27th to clear the pair definitively ends the long-running case, following the 2007 murder. Kercher's throat was slashed and she had been sexually assaulted while she was on an Erasmus year in the medieval hill town of Perugia.
The Kercher family's comments come a year after they expressed confidence in the Italian justice system. Meredith Kercher's mother, Arline, said she was "surprised and very shocked" by the annulment.
It had been widely expected that the court would at least order a retrial, even if it overturned the previous convictions, but instead judges moved to definitively clear both Knox and Sollecito. I do not think anyone could have foreseen this, given that it was the Supreme Court who had demanded a review of the 2011 acquittal. Even the Knox ( and by association) Sollecito online support groups did not see this coming.
Without doubt there was shoddy collection of evidence, without doubt there were breaches of protocol such as failure to record a confession, without doubt there were systemic failings at every level. We have heard so much from Knox's supporters about the faith they have in the Italian Justice system to eventually, as in the fairy tales, to do "the right thing." Italian people, they say, must be very reassured by this. How so? If Sollecito, an Italian, had allegedly colluded in a murder with another Italian, would this story have had worldwide coverage? I suspect not. Knox had the (mis)fortune to be a US citizen, and by default could not be guilty in the eyes of many.
Speaking at her mother's home in Seattle after the pair were cleared, Knox said she was "full of joy." "I'm grateful to have my life back," she told reporters, standing alongside her family. "I'm still absorbing the present moment, which is full of joy."
This time, Knox cried real tears. This time she sobbed and her eyes were not dry. This time, doubtless she spoke with sincerity.
Her Italian defence lawyer said she had been "crying with happiness", over the court's decision. He said: "We shouldn't have had to wait all these years, but we have a good decision today, so we are happy."
In West Seattle, where Knox grew up, the news of her acquittal was accompanied by the sound of fireworks echoing across the water.
"Thank God it's over. They can get on with their lives," said Candace Dempsey, the author of 'Murder in Italy', a book about the case, who has been a constant Knox supporter.
"I'm very pleased and very surprised. Usually I'm an optimist, but I was sure this was going against them. I think it's a brilliant move by Italy. They've averted a diplomatic crisis that no one needed. I couldn't be happier that two innocent people are going free.
"I never thought when I wrote my book that this would happen. I'm so happy."
Dempsey is also hopeful that the online abuse she said she has suffered from those who insisted Knox was guilty will come to an end. "I just hope the 'guilters' can go home now, and this tragic saga will be over at last," she said. "It's made me an admirer of Italian justice."
So, it's still all about Amanda, just as it always has been.
But I'd like to return to Dempsey's comments. "Averting a diplomatic crisis" is very interesting, and implies that perhaps there was some external pressure, or that the US would use all its power and might to resist extradition. I really do not know, but am already investigating these possibilities.
The other comment "I hope the 'guilters' go home" is less controversial, because we would all hope for an end to the hostility engendered by this case. But have the 'guilters' gone home? Not a bit of it, and neither have the strident Knox supporters.
I have never been a Twitter user until now, but three days ago I joined and tweeted some fairly innocuous comments about an unsatisfactory verdict. I directed these comments at both the well- known supporters and detractors of Knox, and within a couple of hours I was an idiot, a troll, an agitator, a piece of shit under someone's shoe, and most risible of all, a NON- BELIEVER!
So now, one cannot be a 'guilter' tut tut no, because the wonderful Italian justice as proclaimed by Dempsey has prevailed. Could this be the same Italian justice which was much maligned during the course of this case?
But it seems we have a new religion, with "agnostics" like myself vilified for daring to question the orthodoxy of the case. As I tweeted today, "Does being a Knox supporter automatically make you a more ethical person? No, it does not.
amanda knoxFrancesco Marescameredith kercherPerugia Italyraffaele sollecitoThe Kercher familythe killing of meredith kercher
Danielle_Simone
Teenage Dating Relationships – Part 2
WHY CINDERELLA IS DANGEROUS!
MIAMI FILM FESTIVAL 2019
corpus vile April 9, 2015 - 1:55 pm
LEAVE BRITNEY oops I mean LEAVE AMANDA ALONE!! SHE'S AS INNOCENT AS CASEY ANTHONY AND THOSE ACTOR DUDES WHO GOT AWAY WITH KILLING THEIR EX WIVES!!
Hey you ever see that Invasion of the Body Snatchers remake where Donald Sutherland gets all freaky and hissy while pointing at those who aren't taken over by those alien pod thingies? That's how we identify unbelievers. 🙂
Anyhoo, in conclusion I think we can all agree that it was the third world immigrant black guy and not the two white middle class types, one of whom was from an influential & politically connected family and whose dad turned up in court surrounded by bodyguards, for some strange reason.
And when Amanda blamed an innocent third world immigrant black guy, that was um… the police's fault.
(Sorry, make that the FOREIGN police's fault, for coercing her with… contamination and stuff)
mike1711 April 9, 2015 - 2:36 pm
You are nothing but a hateful and pathetic pedlar of lies. It doesn't take a genius to read the court record and understand that both Knox and Sollecito had nothing at all to do with this heinous crime.
You hide behind the pretence that you speak for "justice for Meredith" when in fact you vomit hatred at innocent people. If justice for Meredith was your focus you would focus on truth and not bald faced lies aimed at feeding the devil trapped within you.
Pointing fingers at people who left not one scrap of credible evidence behind them is an indication of your own sorry mind more than anything else.
I have read the court record and if you say there was no evidence to tie them to Meredith's murder, then you're deluded, or lying or both.
The fact that you're now making veiled swipes at a murder victim simply highlights how you lot simply like what they did and get a vicarious thrill out of it, creepy weirdos that you are.
Oh my you pathetic soul. I have not ever indicated anything but sorrow for Meredith and her family. But a witch hunt centred on innocent people is a reflection of the sorry state of your hateful psyche than anything else.
There was one attacker. The court has ruled A and R innocent. Get over it!
Bs, I've seen the repugnant attacks, veiled and blatant that you and the rest of your unpleasant ilk have subjected an innocent murder victim and her family to, Mike. You're fooling nobody here.
The court have NOT ruled that A & R are innocent as A & R were acquitted under paragraph 2 of article 530, which is an "insufficient evidence" acquittal, as opposed to definitively innocent. Which means the court did not feel that there was no evidence, just not enough to convict. The fact that you and the rest of her disciples have to perssitently engage in dishonesty says it all about your argument for factual innocence.
"Article 530 (2)…the defendant did not commit the fact".
In this case the "fact" is murder.
Stop listening to what liars tell you and read for yourself.
corpus vile April 10, 2015 - 2:41 am
I did and your stupidity and ignorance is your problem. You don't know what the actual legal code means. You're stupid.
Read for yourself…
Due to "Il fatto no sussiste"- the facts are not sustained that the defendant committed the act, due to insufficient evidence. had she have been acquitted under paragraph 1 of article 530, she would have been acquitted much more definitively. Paragraph 2 is an insufficient evidence acquittal. You're stupid.
mike1711 April 10, 2015 - 10:13 am
"…the facts are not sustained that the defendant committed the act,…" = INNOCENT. Of course it's due to insufficient evidence…..in this case none.
Justice Seeker April 10, 2015 - 11:25 am
Mike, I think there's plenty of evidence- it's just that protocol wasn't followed, and with the world spotlight shining on Italy, and the great hue and cry from 'supporters' or is it 'believers' now from the US, the only choice was to acquit as a face saver.
phad April 10, 2015 - 12:31 pm
I'm sorry, but I have to laugh. Before we were weaklings whose voices were lost on the wind; nobodies screaming this injustice at nobody and now we're suddenly the reason the two innocents got off? Ha hahahaha ha! Please
Professor Jonny Johnson April 11, 2015 - 2:23 pm
You take too much credit, Phad. Where has anyone ever given you or the cult of St Amanda credit for "getting off"…Lol, you must be smoking the stuff Mike mentioned above. You should take no credit for anything, you didn't do anything…
phad April 12, 2015 - 2:30 am
You might try reading the previous post, you know, the one I was responding to.
Professor Jonny Johnson April 12, 2015 - 3:24 am
I was replying directly to the post above mine. It stands.
This is what Justice Seeker said, " the great hue and cry from 'supporters' or is it 'believers' now from the US, the only choice was to acquit as a face saver."So then I said that was suggesting we had power when "…before(I said) we were weaklings whose voices were lost on the wind; nobodies screaming this injustice at nobody and now we're suddenly the reason the two innocents got off? Ha hahahaha ha! Please".
My saying "Please" proffessò, means" no kidding" of course we weren't the reason for the aquittal. hai capito?
Professor Jonny Johnson April 12, 2015 - 10:03 am
I can only reply to what's in front of me Phad, you understand that right?
phad April 12, 2015 - 10:37 am
You told me I was taking credit for the kids getting off, I'm telling you I'm saying the opposite: I'm not taking any credit. Now do you understand?
I'm glad you acknowledged that you didn't help either of the 2 previously accused whatsoever. Thanks for that.
Wrong again. Not taking credit is NOT not acknowledging that I didn't help either of the two. Not taking credit is not taking credit..
Thanks again for acknowledging you wasted your last 7yrs doing nothing. I hope you are able to get back that wasted time.
Aknowledging means something is true and I never said it was a waste of time: it isn't a waste of time when the end result is justice and was what I dreamed would happen.
You're starting to sound a little creepy now, Phad. Perhaps take a time out. Dreaming of the woman from Seattle, who's name I forget, is taking sycophancy a little far.
Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. For whose benifit, I wonder? Clear as day it isn't for the sake of truth. My dream was that Raffaele and Amanda would have their verdicts rightly and justly overturned. That dream has come true.
What was your dream? That an innocent girl would be dragged kicking and screaming back Italy to being wrongly incarcerated?
Do you mean "benefit" with an E Phad? Let's clear that up first and then we can move on with your dreams about the woman from Seattle. I'm here to help you Phad, stop being so defensive.
phad April 14, 2015 - 2:28 pm
So how about those dreams of the conviction being upheld? Got any help for those dashed imaginings?
Please point me to 1 post I have made where I've suggested dreaming about upheld convictions Phad? Anywhere on the internet?
If you're unable to then you concede what we knew already, you're a liar and an oddball who dreams about a young woman who was previously suspected of having murdered Meredith Kercher.
Let that sink in Phad — you do sound really odd, don't you.
You have to direct me to where I did.
The post directly above my response:
"So how about those dreams of the conviction being upheld?"
I take it you are unable to find one post where i've mentioned dreaming about people I don't know being sent to jail? There is a reason you can't find one, they don't exist.
Notice I say nothing of what you accuse me of saying. I am still waiting for my dream you insist on.
Justice Seeker May 4, 2015 - 3:21 pm
When we start talking in the realms of dreams, you can count me out. This is way over the top and proves the point that we must all "be believers now".
phad May 5, 2015 - 7:30 am
"I might have heard something" "…in my head these images seem like dreams…" Ok, you're out.
mike1711 April 10, 2015 - 2:04 pm
Sorry – there no evidence and that's why there's no conviction.
The Maati April 11, 2015 - 2:12 am
Actually there were 2 convictions…and the 3 year prison stretch for Callunia.
mike1711 April 11, 2015 - 3:05 am
Actually the two convictions have been ANNULLED. They are void, annulled non-extistent. They have been banished to the black hole of MISTAKES!!!
Which protocols are you referring to, Justice Seeker? The protocols Conti & Vechiotti were told to spout were an obscure US highway patrol protocols. Do you mean those ones?
jackbutler5555 May 4, 2015 - 4:02 pm
Protocol wasn't followed? That's it. Well, hael that's no big deal, is it? Frigging red tape.
corpus vile April 10, 2015 - 3:23 pm
There was enough evidence to get past a panel of judges to go to trial and enough evidence to convince 34 judges of guilt, out of 45 judges who took part in the total process. There was enough evidence to convict in the first instance and second level. The fact that you need to lie that there was no evidence, says it all about your argument for innocence. My citing of the relevant criminal code for insufficient evidence as opposed to definitive acquittal is for the benefit of impartial readers, not zealots like you.
34 out of 45. Really? That's some really good stuff you're smoking. Your socks?
You mean you weren't aware of that? There's a surprise, lol.
You never cease to amaze me with your lies and distortions. A "Lay" Judge is NOT a fully fledged Judge. That is why the report has "Lay" preceding the word "Judge". It's like saying a football team has two captains, which it does not. It has a captain and a VICE captain. Note the word "vice" which precedes the word "captain". If you choose to leave the word "Lay" out before the word "Judge" you simply become dishonest. But then I already knew that.
Ha haha HA ! Just so you know, plain logic confuses the hell out of Corps. Must've been a bad childhood experience or something…
Credibility feeds off honesty. Corpus has zero credibility. The entire anti-Knox brigade are in the main of the same ilk.
Mikey is angry that no one believes the convicted, prison served liar? Sollecito's inner circle said Amanda did it.
syndicatednews April 11, 2015 - 3:39 am
The Maati, you've attracted the attention of many here at the site, not because of your great posts but because of your repeated identical posts. We need you to calm down and take it easy. Post something "once" only. Thank you.
jackbutler5555 April 11, 2015 - 1:57 pm
Are not the last few judges the ones who count?
Sure, if you're simply interested in the verdict (as in wish for the verdict to go your way) as opposed to truth and justice, neither of which hold any interest to you. You gonna look me up when you visit Dublin, Jack?:D
jackbutler5555 April 13, 2015 - 8:41 am
Truth and justice, eh? Have you ever run across a situation in which you advocated anything but..your vision of truth and justice. If you're going to debate, debate. But, if you prefer to pontificate, do that.
What "interests" me is the rule of law.
I'll email you my arrival times.
I think we shall have to wait for the motivation report before we can make assumptions about the real reasons for acquittal.
corpus vile April 10, 2015 - 12:08 pm
I agree completely. Anything prior to the release is pure speculation.
Although I do join with you in thinking the acquittal had nothing to do with justice.
OhioBrian April 12, 2015 - 1:55 pm
Show me one iota of evidence that any anger is direct at the Kercher family. I have the utmost respect for them and feel for their pain at the loss of their innocent daughter, Meredith.
Danielle Simone April 10, 2015 - 2:56 pm
Actually Mike, what inspired another article of mine, on this site, DON'T SCAPEGOAT THE KERCHERS, was an article on another site demanding that the Kerchers unite with the families of the ex defendants and accept that Guede was the sole murderer.
Now, IMO, the Kerchers should do nothing of the kind. They need time and space to absorb this unexpected verdict. They need time and space to grieve in private.
What they do not need is to be labelled "greedy" and "ignorant". Their adherence to the belief in the guilt of the ex defendants has been a major irritant to the supporters. However it is the fact that in Italian Courts the civil cases are pursued alongside the criminal case which is at fault.
You know, the same justice system you are now applauding!
Peace for all relies on justice for all. It is not justice to convict innocent people. …and it's not justice to subject the loved ones of Meredith Kercher to a futile exercise of riding headlong at windmills.
I certainly support the justice but definitely not the system. I will never applaud a system so tortuous, convoluted and contradictory as the one travelled by Knox, Sollecito and the friends and family of Meredith.
….and it is not a fitting tribute to Meredith to throw innocent people into jail for the illusion of justice.
Unlike many I do believe the Kerchers deserve some scorn at this point. I have sympathy that they lost their daughter but that only extends so far when in effect their blindness to the truth not only nearly did the same to two innocent people(and still having great effect) that was done to Meredith, namely having their lives destroyed because of this, but ALSO failed to find justice for their daughter; partly because of their actions, Guede got off light, but also he didn't face nearly the pressure to tell the truth so the full sequence of events that occurred that night will never be known, nor will he likely now reveal anything as the window has closed(whether he feels remorse or not) on his likelihood of confessing anything.
Granted, the Perugian authorities and tabloid media I think deserve most all the blame in this case, and to me this even extends to the courts as these are problematic worldwide as weeding out the bad apples..even when clear to nearly everyone else as the people who are paid to have the most faith in the system often fall to the failing of having the most faith in the system.
And the problem therein becomes one in which at least one of the Kerchers had numerous missed opportunities to stand and say "the emperor has no clothes". In effect this is close to what they have now done..but now its far too late.
They lost a daughter most certainly, but in that regard they perhaps should have been most suited for two other families who stood to lose their children too…even if they still had doubts as to the individuals' innocence, one would hope sympathy might extend to their families. We may never know what exactly transpired behind the scenes, but its fairly clear there were few if any lines of communication at all between even legal teams which in the end came back to bite them. And Amanda was reaching out to them quite a bit, to only fall on deaf ears for these many years. For which also now Amanda and Raffaele have the right to seek legal recourse in Italy for what was done to them…though I doubt either will give serious pursuit as want all this to be over with. Sadly on many levels it may never be.
The least of which however I do think the Kerchers owe them both as well their own daughter the courtesy of a "sit down". Even if they're still burning inside with rage and/or despair, these two defendants have now been declared innocent after nearly 8 long years; they owe it to everyone to face whom it seems they still think are their daughters' killers.
It also goes to I think a very old standard of justice; that those who've been put on trial for their lives have at least a right to face their would be persecutors or if family to family, to try and find some remediation to the feud between them. Not least of which as victims they can't begin the healing process either till very hard realities are faced. One of which is the feeling of Meredith being killed once more as now there is no justice, Rudy now eligible for release and full truth remaining obscured of which they bear some responsibility. Cry for a long while, but then get on Skype or that plane to Seattle as it really is the only way you're gonna find any peace.
Finally, let it be known that no one is applauding the Italian justice system; its more like a sarcastic clap or cry of relief their seeing the light in spite of themselves…FINALLY!
If that's what you believe, then some may believe the Knox family also deserved to be hounded to the ends of the earth for teaching a daughter that taking drugs and lying to police during an murder investigation is the right thing to do. They also deserve to hounded to the ends of the earth for teaching their daughter that accusing an innocent man of murder is ok.
Knox & Sollecito were cleared of the murder, that obviously means they can't help with answers. But now fans of Knox are completely contradicting themselves by suggesting Knox can provide answers. How strange.
Meredith's family don't owe anybody anything, least of all Knox or Sollecito. It's hateful posts like yours that turn so many people against Knox and Sollecito. Their respective fan clubs are the worst enemies they have.
Your post has been screen captured & will be added to the Meredith Kercher hater website alongside your name.
OhioBrian April 13, 2015 - 12:36 am
The stuff with the Knoxes has now been finalized by the courts after Amanda's having been put on public trial for nearly 8 years now. Even if she's fully culpable for the Lumumba thing (which I think spurious btw that Perugians themselves faced nothing for), she's not only recanted that testimony(almost immediately), but also apologized, as well served time over. Interesting thing about Lumumba though, he's not stopped slandering her for murder even post final verdict of which he's somewhat in a sense guilty of the same things partly as he like her wasn't a party at all to the crime, nor had any authority to speak on others for which he had no real relationship accounts; he was and still is a far cry third party connection.
Knox and Sollecito have been now legally cleared of the crime that's true, but still have to fight disbelief in their innocence, repair their unjustly soiled reputations, as well for the Kerchers but also others, these two now hold keys to their finding "closure" on the issue as if they believe guilty and yet now free, its likely they will forever live with bitterness.
You're right about that Meredith's family don't ultimately owe anybody anything, well save for maybe their daughter and themselves..and/or helping to put the world at peace over this issue now. At this point though Knox and Sollecito are at full liberty to tell them otherwise to go sod off (and many in similar situations might, seeing the ordeal they went through themselves), but in this regard I think Amanda especially has been the bigger person as she has her own needs too not to be be hated; I won't deny the woman's largely an emotionally needy basketcase who breaks down in shivers and sobs when she thinks people are hurting or hate her(a pretty good reason alone why if Meredith was truly mad at I think she would've folded into an hour long crying session); what is the award they essentially created for her in high school though? -Oh, yeah, that "Most Compassionate" one.
Were I her though I'd put all my cards on the table (as both families really need to again find closure); have Meredith's mom and her sister come to Seattle(as likely Knox going to England be like Paparazzi Lions' Den), spend a week with her and if they still think she's guilty by the end, they have free rein to cut into Knox with knives or harm her personhood similarly; after all its what their inability to deal with reality has been doing this whole time anyway. Though Meredith suffered a horrific and untimely death, she likely didn't live but minutes in suffering nor live to see her face plastered across the world of which I'm sure if there is a Heaven she's in, meanwhile Amanda and Raffaele, but also the Kercher Family, have been through Hell since.
Hell which is unlikely to be resolved to even modicum of satisfaction till the issue handled in making some sort of peace outside the confines of the court. Balls in theirs though as this is my suggestion, yet I'm not sure Amanda, big as her marshmallow heart is, would be willing to make such a gesture at this time
Oh, and by the way, what really is this to you at this point? -Is it only being some member of some respective fan club? Or are the Kerchers or their fans some feigned aggrieved "world against them" malignites who thus relish their being wronged then in keeping some Nixonian style "Enemies' List"? -I've touched on that their crusade in perhaps some subtle or subconscious way might be as vain attempt to keep their daughter or her fading memory alive, but such a website if in any way given sanction by them would indeed be verging on the pathological.
I pray then that they and their daughter may find some peace, even if this includes some pressure now to do so or otherwise doesn't give in to mental illness. Sometimes the truth hurts tremendously but in the end it must be both realized and recognized for healing to begin.
Ohio Brian, I think what you are expecting from the Kerchers would surpass the humanitarian capacity of a saint!
Now you have this "truth" in your mind, and for you it is unshakeable. There is nothing amiss there. But the Kerchers do not share your truth. TRUTH is not an absolute concept; it is something we determine for ourselves.
You say that the Kerchers missed opportunities for reconciliation, but why would they wish for contact with someone they believe murdered their daughter?
To refer back to your earlier comment, a definitive account of the days before and after the murder would certainly help them, but how about Sollecito explaining " the missing hours" when he said Amanda was not with him?
How about remedying the collective amnesia about the night and following day, like remembering phone calls which were made and why?
How about Knox and Sollectito getting together with their books which contradict and subtly cast aspersions on each other, and thrashing out a version they can both agree on?
If Knox could explain to the Kerchers why she seemed more concerned about having to pay the rent until the end of the month, than their dead daughter, then this "reaching out" to them might seem more sincere.
My best hope is that Guede's lawyers deem a re trial advantageous in some way, and that he slips up and completely incriminates himself, or conversely, that he tells the full version of what transpired that night. Only then will the cloud of suspicion disappear (or not) and only then will the Kerchers find solace.
OhioBrian April 12, 2015 - 10:51 pm
I don't think it would take so much; the truth was out there were they willing to see it, not least of innocence, but in regard to just how much they were being sold a bill of goods by the Perugians of which they fell for because they wanted to believe their daughter hadn't died for something so senseless or impersonal; keeping the case going and her memory in the public moonlight was a way to feel in one sense she was still alive. Upon this though from the very start the truth was being lost; this case made an absolute international sensation, and it was clear from the beginning there were some more than willing to throw anything and everything against the wall to see what stuck, of which the Kerchers all too willing to go along with if they felt helped their cause…because to me that's still something way largely unaccounted for: Knox in particular's horrific drag-line through the mud to highly prejudice the world with few of any in authority or propriety speaking out upon; she was made a Medusa before hard evidence ever came to light of which those external but still a party to like the Kerchers, should've shot down as actually implied similar about their daughter, i.e. Knox's behavior/persona as a young college student abroad really wasn't all that different than Kercher's. They were both exploring their sexuality, both liked going out on the town, experimenting with weed, naive about much of the world which is why they'd launched their own adventures to explore, etc. Unfortunately this is largely the story with I'd say even majorities of young kids in college, but one that really just Knox slandered as a Harlot because of.
So much of these past 8 years they've claimed "Meredith has been forgotten," when this wasn't true at all, or not of Knox's doing/desires that the case blew to international proportions, but instead what was being forgotten was truth, honor, justice, and decency. It was a machine set in motion and charted on a course before any real facts came to light of which so many opportunities missed to hit the emergency brake or throw a wrench in the works.
Finally I'd ad to your point about Knox and Sollecito; these two on trial for their lives of which I've said for years that because of police impropriety, there is NO acquaintance, accessory, or direct testimony that can be considered reliable in this case, and that includes as well if not especially the defendants. It is not up to these two to prove the prosecutions' case or investigate the crime of who killed Meredith as that's not were the burden lies, but rather to mount the best defenses they can. It stands little reason thus to keep hounding them for details of the murder when they were not a party to it, nor locking down every tidbit of their lives in long term memory(by their own admission stoned and coming after the previous Halloween late night's adventure.) to be followed by the events whipping into a soon absolute whirlwind. Amanda Knox should not be expected to be Nancy Drew any more than Raffaele Sollecito Sherlock Holmes, nor should such a case hinge on testimonies of two again who were not there and did not kill Meredith Kercher.
As far as your own, to my knowledge Raffaele never said Amanda was not with him (well besides in the interrogation room of which wasn't recorded or otherwise told to Amanda to get her to breakdown), but even of recent him more than ever in his own "prisoner's dilemma" situation once more Amanda back in US and only he facing real jeopardy, he's stated that he couldn't be 100% certain she was with him the entire time. Technically pretty common when people are sleeping.
As far as collective amnesia about phone calls, didn't realize it came down to who either were calling(again absolutely presumptive of their being guilty in fitting narrative rather than evidence leading) but seems to negate Rudy never having had phone contact with them, his then having pretty significant messaging against their guilt before in police custody when talking to his friend, as well negates Meredith's own phone logs which also go very far to show she was murdered a good bit before 10PM (which lines up with Guede's non-custody details as well a lot of other evidence) and of which all but makes it an impossibility that Knox and Sollecito could've even been there, let alone had any sort of altercation that led to a 3 stranger international intra-ethnic murder conspiracy incident, of which of all people Sollecito not likely to lie about as he'd absolutely no good motive to kill Meredith at all in any Prosecution scenario, but even more to keep it covered up against the other two for so long. The timelines and phones indeed don't work, but actually its not circumstantial claptrap speculation regarding from morning after; they indeed exonerate these two defendants fully from the murder night before. Even on the back end, one has to remember too that Guede was changed clothes, ditched evidence, out on the town dance clubs by midnight.
Very nicely put.
Feel free to copy and paste. Of course failure to do so will make you a liar in the eyes of many.
Guest April 9, 2015 - 3:05 pm
Read for yourself….
I've read and re-read Mike1711's comment to which you responded. I see no "veiled swipes" at the victim. Often posters try to interpret comments attacking the prosecution's case not as an opportunity to debate, but as a means of demonizing the other side by portraying what they say as harassment of Meredith and the Kercher family.
Perhaps when the verdict report is released, you will be able to focus on the case.
In the time i've known you Jackie, you have only allowed yourself to post one disgusting comment regarding the Kercher's. You have come a long way since then. Don't allow yourself to be drawn back into being an idiot. I have given you credit in the past for not being one of the typical fans of Knox. Don't let me and others down Jackie. Use my trust wisely.
I would never jeopardize my status as one who has earned your trust. After all, I'm flying into Dublin in August and I don't want to be greeted at baggage claim by Irish anti-Knox protesters chanting I'm not trustworthy, or worse being called an idiot. What would the other passengers think?
I don't live in Southern Ireland, Jackie. However, if you travel 45 minutes up the M1 — don't listen to the sat-nav and keep to the M1– a cold beer will be awaiting for you across the boarder. Be sure to keep away from County Meath and someone calling themselves Guilterwatchin 😉
If I cross the border, my ancestors would spin in their graves.
There was no border when your ancestors inhabited Ireland, it wasn't created until 1921, they wouldn't have known about it.
But they knew where the Protestants were in large numbers.
Hahaha – Does this mean you'll be keeping well away from Counties Monaghan, Donegal and Cavan? You know Ulster has 9 counties of course, 3 of which are in the Republic? You also know they still have Orange parades in those 3 ROI counties Jackie?
Don't tell anyone, I'm Catholic shhh.
jackbutler5555 April 12, 2015 - 12:48 pm
Yep. It's the counties of Dublin, Wicklow, and Kilkenny.
I been to all 3..just beautiful! Really wanna go back to Ireland sometime.
I am looking forward to seeing these places again. I just need to stay on the Irish-correct side of the road that habit and instinct will interfere with. No auto pilot.
You won't be welcome, save yourself a wasted journey.
….but they do now.
corpus vile April 12, 2015 - 10:48 am
Be sure to look me up Jackie. I'll buy you a beer. 🙂
I thought Jonny gave me an invitation. Any way, I'll look you up in the Irish phone book. Under Corpus Vile?
There's no more evidence tying them to the murder than there is tying you.
Swansea Jack April 11, 2015 - 11:00 am
You are evidently ignorant to the facts of the case
Clearly the five most esteemed Italian Supreme Court Judges who rightfully acquitted both defendants are on my side…..or perhaps you will accuse them of ignorance too?
Swansea Jack April 11, 2015 - 7:03 pm
Clearly we will have to wait for their reasoning report to see how and why they failed Meredith. As for esteemed why do you draw this conclusion? I politely suggest you research the judges involved and then come back to comment if you presume they are all tickety boo. And yes they are clearly ignorant to the evidence and the facts of tge case. If they weren't Knox and Sollecito would be behind bars.
How can you tell if the cassation judges are "clearly ignorant to the evidence and the facts of the case"?
The answer is simple. They have blatantly ignored their own motivation report and also Nencini , Micheli and Massei and acquitted Knox and Sollecito of murder. This causes proplems for Italy. Who were Guede's accomplices if not Knox and Sollecito?
Well then, how do you know the latest cassation justices ignored the motivation reports by the lower courts you favor? Is it that they might not agree with those reports — possibly? Maybe they don't agree with the notion that Guede, athletic, bigger, stronger than Kercher needed help — e-v-e-n t-h-o-u-g-h h-e w-a-s a-r-m-e-d w-i-t-h a k-n-i-f-e.
Guede was convicted of participating in Meredith's murder with others. If Judge Bruno disagrees he has a lot of explaining to do and Maresca has been quoted as saying words to the effect of "the judges believe Guede's accomplices have never been found" As I have said many times I will wait for the judges reasoning report explaining how they failed Meredith
If one of the judges said what you said he said, then they embraced the more than one stabber theory or have quietly rejected it but are trying to save the two other cassation courts' face.
It's probably the latter. Their role was to determine whether whatever happened was caused by the defendants. They could fulfill that role and still not have to get into the issue as to whether the assailant — armed, athletic, bigger, stronger — was the sole killer.
JLS1950 April 13, 2015 - 3:14 am
Somehow I don't think Judge Bruno is under any obligation to explain anything to you.
Swansea Jack April 13, 2015 - 3:59 am
According to Italian legislation he is obliged to provide a report explaining the courts decision within 90 days of the verdict.
Yes, but he will not mail you a copy and he will not ask your approval. And his decision is final.
And I guess your Dad is bigger than my Dad too?
http://m.pnas.org/content/110/30/12241.full
Here you go. As promised Balding's peer reviewed paper. I look forward to you posting yours as requested. Thanks.
The report doesn't deal with contamination:-
"Note that I cannot address here issues of how the DNA came to be in the exhibit: Possible contamination was an issue in the trial and appeal. I only consider whether there is DNA from Sollecito…"
Armed with 2 knives according to you Jackie, which he switched and swapped as he saw fit.
Knives have at least one edge. This business of looking at a wound and identify the knife which caused it is really bogus. Movement of the perp and/or victim obviously changes the shape of the wound. But the knife in question could not have been shoved to the hilt (as a bruise indicates) without coming out the other side. One knife — and its not the common kitchen knife found in Sollecito's place and just about every kitchen.
The defence conceded 2 knives Jackie. But why should I believe the pathologists/scientists/police officers who were actually there when we have you & Ron Hendry, who weren't there, to tell us exactly what happened. LOL Jackie, thanks for the laughs.
I think you think you're debating a monolith. You're just debating me. I don't have to maintain solidarity with anyone.
So, please address my — my — comment on the knife.
Fair comment, let me rephrase it:
"The defence conceded 2 knives Jackie. But why should I believe the pathologists/scientists/police officers who were actually there when we have you & Ron Hendry who weren't there, to tell us exactly what happened. LOL Jackie, thanks for the laughs.
Respect for authority is a hallmark of the pro-guilt folks — except in this latest instance when authority didn't reinforce their dispositions.
I have stated the shortcomings of the two-knife theory. Those authority figures you cite erred and I have already told you why. But feel free to find fault with what I said.
Are you suggesting the authority of the ISC should be disregarded now Jackie?
Did I seem to make exceptions? I respect authorities only if they make sense. The justices will have to earn my respect in their motivation report. It was the right verdict, in my view, but that doesn't mean that I will automatically buy into what they will write.
I'm not like the pro-guilt folks who venerated Massei's and Nencini's documents.
Oh I get it now. You respect authority only when it agrees with you. What a wonderful way to live life Jackie. Someone annoys you, kill them, disagree with the authority that will lock you up for murder and in Jackie land you should get off scott free. lol.
The pub's about to close. Time to stake your spot at the curb.
You would know Jackie, have they ring the last order bell yet?
Yes, and the pathologist said "this is not the murder weapon" and "one attacker could have done this" – or Italian words to that effect. Oh! How STRANGE! That is just what Hendry said, also!
Dr Lalli and Dr Liviero testified that "the nature of the bruises and multiple wounds caused by several different methods — suffocation, strangulation and stabbing — led them to deduce Kercher was attacked by more than one person.Dr Liviero stated "There were more hands involved"…
Two defense experts testified that they saw no evidence that more than one attacker was involved although both these experts declined to examine Meredith.
Dr. Introna testified that the murder could only have happened from behind. Dr. Torre testified that the attack could only have happened from the front. Dr. Torre was questioned about the lack of defensive wounds and he agreed that normally he would expect considerably greater defensive wounds, but the lack of defensive wounds was not something he felt needed addressing.
How strange, that like Hendry, Introna and Torre both chose to work from photos rather than examining Meredith.
No, that is not what Lalli said.
That is what he said, it's just not what you wanted him to say Joe.
Anyhow, the case is done with, it's pointless attempting to argue the innocence of a pair who have been found innocent, that's just silly.
Reverence for authority, eh? Then R.C. dogma must be an easy sell to you. But in your defense, you can assert that reverence does not extend to any authority figure who undermines your predispositions.
Okay, so Guede had helpers. Of all the people in the world, only two have been adjudged not to have helped. The rest of us are suspects, eh?
If you're saying Guede did have helpers, then you agree with the Sollecito's defence team, I therefore don't see problem Jackie, you did support him after all.
You seem to be having a conflict with yourself but asking me to help. I don't wish to help you Jackie. Sure, I don't mind helping you pass an hour or 2 every few days, I like jumping on here when I'm watching a film on Netflix, it's a good pastime. But asking me to give you real one to one time is asking a little too much, I hope you understand.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution if its theory of the case includes others were involved. I don't believe they were able to lift that burden through speculations of various kinds.
You are aware that presumption of guilt demands that prosecutorial conjecture as to what took place does not override defense conjecture equal to or better than the guesses the prosecution makes.
We have been over this before — Massei = trail, Hellmann = appeal, ISC = overruled Helmann. Nencini = appeal.
Again, I hope that clears it up for you.
Shortage of predicates, but I think I can follow. I think you're of the belief that the lower courts' decisions trump that of the upper courts.
That's an interesting notion.
What gives you the impression I believe that? Wasn't it the fans of the woman from Seattle who told us the ISC got it wrong, whilst Hellmann got it right? Yeah, I remember you all saying that…Which leads me to believe only 1 thing — You're of the belief that the lower courts' decisions trump that of the upper courts, eh Jackie…
If I said what you said I said then what you said would make a whole lot of sense. But I didn't; so, you don't.
"Okay, so Guede had helpers." – Did he?
"The rest of us are suspects," – Are we?
The first was mere repetition of your theory. The last was a humorous way of telling you that other-people-were-involved stuff isn't going to work, certainly if the other people are the exonerated defendants.
Not according to me.
I have never attempted to choreograph the stabbing. That would be as speculative as the so-called experts were.
Also, where's the murder weapon? Are they throwing Sollecito's knife out? How come they can acquit two defendants with a court established murder weapon, yet convict another with no murder weapon?
Because the French/Chef's knife that went "There and Back Again: A Tale by D*ldo Migniggins" wasn't the murder weapon at all and had no basis for even being considered as such. Also, it then became a court rejected murder weapon.
Meanwhile the known burglar, knife wielder, and person discovered break-in confronter, who fled the country and ditched evidence apparently ditched the evidence.
How did they convict any of them though without finding their clothes soaked in Meredith's blood? Hmmm. A: Cause Guede got rid of his and Amanda and Raffaele were innocent!
The dimension of a knife wound doesn't give many clues that would be helpful in identifying the nature of the knife. But sometimes, dimensions of wounds can exclude some knives.
And as luck would have it, the knife in question, as well as millions of such common, mass-produced knives in kitchens throughout the world, could not have linked to the hilt-caused bruise at the opening of the wound. It was too long. It would have caused an exit opening.
jack April 12, 2015 - 6:22 pm
Of course the knife is "thrown out". Of course they will dismiss the illogic of Massei and Nencini and the previous Cassation report. The previous findings were completely bogus anyway, so contradicting them is perfectly natural. Do you think that this somehow matters? Do you think that because they reversed themselves or contradicted an earlier courts findings that it means something special or that you can determine guilt from that?
They can argue that aliens came down and forced Guede to do the crime. It is completely irrelevant. The ruling as a legal judgment matters. And its final.
No one; he didn't have any accomplices (other than the Perugian Police covering for as he may have been an informant or some relation with, partly as Rudy up till recent was supported by one of Perugia's wealthiest families), but otherwise he killed Meredith alone in what was a burglary where he got caught on the scene. Like had happened twice before(at least one confirmed by the Milanese police(nursery school he broke into twice! -wtf? Nursery School? What a gold mine! Two times? What a d*mb*ss!) themselves of whom were told and paid by Perugia to let him go and put him on a train back to their town).
Whole thing stunk to high heaven before Meredith's crime even occurred!
Feel free to substantiate any of your false claims. Guede was not even charged with burglary to Brocchi's office or to the school as it was determined by the head teacher Del Prato that Guede was given access to the school by one of her members of staff. You have clearly swallowed the FOA propaganda. Next you will be telling me he was a police informant.
OhioBrian April 13, 2015 - 8:37 am
Actually he was charged…though only in February of 2008 well after he already killed Meredith. Because you see that nursery school had been hit before, though that second time only some small things were missing, including a knife from the kitchen they found in his backpack along with items from the lawyers' office robbery including the laptop(you know, the one where he had broken in by throwing a rock through an elevated window too just two weeks before), as well a hammer of the kind used for breaking glass, and a gold watch from another womans' burglary. Again, he was charged in 2008 for the stolen property, too late for Meredith.
You're correct though; as far as Guede's relationship with the Perugians, that's never been given a full or proper investigation or accounting for, though it does seem odd they paid the Milanese for his train ticket back. Not that he'd have needed as he got caught in Germany, not for being Rudy Guede, killer of Meredith Kercher, but because he was riding the train there without having purchased a ticket. You don't have to take my word for it though on his criminal priors, Mignini himself later admitted Guede should've been in jail the time of Kerchers' killing.
Thanks for proving my point Guede was not convicted of burglary but with possession of stolen items. Guede had no previous MO relating to Meredith's murder or the surrounding circumstances. However Sollecito allegedly had form for a scissor attack on a girl while in school which was covered up and records apparently destroyed prior to investigation and Knox had form which he has openly admitted to for staging burglaries. Do not get me wrong, I am not trying to negate Guede's involvement. He is guilty and deserves to rot. However I do not believe it is right he is the only one punished for a crime committed by 3.
I think given everything known about the case, Guede's priors stand just fine. That perhaps he was not convicted of burglary perhaps in some ways telling in and of itself. Not least of which for Kercher's flat as apparently not only did he not break-in or burgle the place, but was not responsible for the staging either. How convenient for him!
As far as the your other two bits, guilters really grasping at straws at this point. -For a 3 unacquaintance international intra-ethnic sex/murder conspiracy(maybe not sex now), you're mining some completely spurious tabloid guilter website fodder about some unnamed informant of Raffaele supposedly from back to his middle school days. It's ludicrous. It's Hekuran Kokomani.
As far as Knox, this "prior form" coming from her having taken part in some April Fool's prank, again parroted and paraded forth on guilter media just another hack attempt to try to lob excrement at her and see if it sticks; you'd have been better saying she's a violent killer by showing some silly photos of her at a museum comically manning some old Maxim gun…wait, that's been trotted out as tripe by your side too! It's really sick.
And if you want to know where I stand at at this point, given the entirety of the case (now closed by the Supreme Court, Amanda never need return to Italy), someone could produce photos of her red handed jamming the knife into Meredith's belly, and I still wouldn't believe as likely someone of the prosecution or your side to have Photoshopped such sh*te! Even for me just because the extreme unlikelihood and sheer implausibility of almost any feasible situation involving the three of them being involved in the murder together, then multiplied with all the evidence from that evening showing it an otherwise impossibility for Knox and Sollecito(cause the best they have is that 4+ men DNA bra clasp) to have even been at the scene without say a vehicle scurrying them there and back and some form of premeditation that doesn't otherwise exist in this dimension!, to me on just these merits alone points to Guede being the sole perpetrator involved as well then the most likely scenario is that some things highly improper were going on inside the Perugian Police Department!
I'm wondering if this is what the High Court will find as well in their full formalized ruling.
There is no record of scissor attacks.
Objective and reliable citation? Oh, it's you. Never mind.
What I find truly astounding is that without even knowing about Guede's housebreaking tricks, A&R did an amazingly close approximation of Guede's tricks in their "bogus break in". I wonder what the statistical odds are of unknowingly emulating a "fellow" criminals modus operandi is? 100 million to 1?
Guede had no previous modus operandi relating to any of the events surrounding Meredith's murder.
Ok have it your way. Try this then:-
mike1711 April 13, 2015 - 11:52 pm
Ok try this then…..
What I find truly astounding is that without even knowing about Guede's suspected housebreaking tricks, A&R did an amazingly close approximation of Guede's suspected tricks in their "bogus break in". I wonder what the statistical odds are of unknowingly emulating a "fellow" criminals suspected modus operandi is? 100 trillion to 1?
Guilty verdicts aren't decided by who-else-could-done-it deliberations.
Quite correct. The evidence against Knox and Sollecito was overwhelming and Cassazione will have sime explaining to do to justify why they lacked the courage or integrity to convict them.
And if they don't do "some explaining," what will happen?
Why would it take courage to convict them? What specific fear would they have to overcome? Perhaps they feared subsequent pre-extradition reviews by Italy, the U.S., and the ECHR might further ruin the judiciary's reputation. The whole world would be watching as the case is disassembled.
So, what is your desire? Is it for the court to concede the other "overwhelming" evidence is correct and they made a mistake in dismissing it as worthless?
No it causes problems for Nencini, Michelin and Massei. These problems need to be addressed by the Italian legal system.
mike1711 May 1, 2015 - 4:30 pm
You are a coward and blocking me on Twitter won't block the truth. You posted lies about what Rudy said……and here is the truth….
"…DEFENSE ATTY. DALLA VEDOVA – And so, Mr. Guede, when you write the text that it was "a horrible murder of the wonderful marvelous girl that was Meredith by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox" what do you mean exactly? Had you ever said this?
WITNESS (Rudy) – Well this, I never said it explicitly in this manner however I always thought it."
So Mr Guede says he did not accuse AK & RS of murdering Kercher – he's kind of evasive in court and probably because he's afraid to commit perjury in court so is deliberately evasive about the truth….and the truth is Rudy commited the murder ALONE!
Swansea Jack May 2, 2015 - 6:50 am
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Rudy_Guede%27s_Testimony_(Hellmann)_(English)
I blocked you for your own good. I have been educating simpletons to the facts of this case for nearly two years and it gets tiresome every time a new troll egg appears. This is how this works point by point:
1. New Troll shows up making daft claims.
2. I attempt to educate said Troll to the facts.
3. Said Troll attempts to change subject and gets argumentative.
4. I make said Troll look very silly and it gets angry and abusive.
5. I go to sleep at peace cwtched in to Mrs Jack, said Troll stays up all night frothing at the mouth and cyberstalking me.
6. Said Troll after receiving his ass on a plate goes in to psychological meltdown, stalks people on the internet they believe are me and posts photos of this uninvolved person and his family with derogatory comments.
The bottom line is I've been there I have the tshirt. You are neither informed or intelligent enough to debate this case with me and frankly you need to get to stop obsessing over Swansea Jack.
My time on this article has come to an end. I have been informative, educational and I hope slightly entertaining. If you would like me to send you a pack of kleenex to mop your chin please provide a PO box address.
All the best Jack 😉
If no one pats you on the back, you can reach around and do it yourself. Wait, you've already done it.
By the way, it's too bad you referred people to a source on TMB/Luminol/PCR that confirms what I said. That must be embarrassing.
You lied. I educated you by pointing out your lie. You blocked me on Twitter without so much as an acknowledgement of your lie. If you feel so strongly about continuing your fight against reality why not take it to the Judges in Italy …..who could probably educate you. However your arrogance would never allow you to admit your inferiority to the Rome Judges. So carry on living in your world of make believe.
syndicatednews April 9, 2015 - 3:53 pm
Corpus Vile, That's never left my memory! Will somebody please explain what that was all about? What was that with the bodyguards? I remember that the knife once came to court and it too had its own bodyguard.
Sollecito's dad came to court in an armour plated limo surrounded by bodyguards and is under investigation for attempting to interfere with the cops' investigation. His dad's a doctor. Last check up I had my doctor wasn't surrounded by bodyguards, nor was she driving an armour plated limo. His dad appears to be somewhat shady.
I'm interested to know your source for your defamation of Dr. Sollecito.
I'm interested to know your source for your defamation of the Kercher family for the past 7yrs?
It must be the other Jack Butler.
Nope – you made 1 as explained below. Water under the bridge now though. The case is over & the Italians have declared Knox & Sollecito innocent. Any involvement by the Professor now is purely to settle old scores…
I now remember what I said. It was not defamation. And I stand by it. I guess that puts me back on the list with all the other bad guys. Darn, I had so wanted to be respectable again.
So your post attacking the Kercher family was not meant to damage, it was just for personal pleasure? Ok Jackie, gotcha.
You probably copied it. Feel free to post it here. Personal pleasure? What a strange thing to say. Damage? How so?
There is no "probably" about it Jackie. I did copy it. Wanting to read back what your wrote is kind of weird Jackie. Almost as though you took personal pleasure from it the first time around.
Post it, so that the world will know what a bad guy I am.
Calm down Jackie – you sound like your salivating at the thought. Have you stopped drinking from last night?
Aux contraire: you're the one that sounds like a nutter.
Really clever comeback, well done Phad. I'll struggle making you look silly when you come up genius replies like that.
I'm sure you will, I look forward to it.
You're sure i'll struggle making you look silly, or you're sure ill make you look silly? Which one Phad? From where i'm sat you're doing all the easy work for me.
Having trouble with the grammar again? No biggie, you'll get over it.
It's ok you can't answer Phad – making FOA look simple is a specialty of mine. It's not even hard.
"Ill" often makes one look silly but more often just sick. You should know.
Oh, I see. Putting words in other people's mouths, too. On a mission?
Whether you rumour mongering is true or not please explain how this has any relevance to the guilt/innocence of Knox and Sollecito?
bucketoftea April 26, 2015 - 5:43 pm
Raffaele had plenty of *family* to look after him in Canada, US and wherever else it was he went.
Michelle Moore May 3, 2015 - 4:38 pm
He's not shady
Out of gas on the exoneration thingy? No problem. Just call someone a racist. Who's gonna notice your backing off from the topic?
Backing off how? I'm simply still confronted with your bs non arguments even after an acquittal so why would I endure more of them yet again? Considering I'll probably have to endure them from you in some future time, when you defend her on some future thread if she kills again?
I really don't think you realise just quite how dangerous these two are, particularly Raffaele. That said, neither are roaming my streets, so that's something.
Don't speak too soon, Jackie is on his way to Ireland in August. He's taking a copy of "Waiting to be Heard" and 1000's of photos of the woman from Seattle who's name I have forgotten. Apparently he intends to do a Gulf war style leaflet drop covering Drogheda to Cork with the photos.
Sean Lamb April 12, 2015 - 12:20 pm
Hey Corpus, I am reading a claim – unsourced – that Dr Stefanoni has been fired. And Peggy has pulled the plug on pmf.org.
Do you know if the first is true? Are the two related?
What happened to that invite for coffee Sean? Is it still open?
dylan April 13, 2015 - 2:10 pm
I believe Conti and V had their lab closed down recently due to filthy conditions.
That's absolutely correct and just one of many reasons why their credibility is completely shot out of the water.
Yes they did. Carla Vecchiotti also once cross contaminated evidence in the Ogliata murder case by storing evidence in boxes which contained DNA from another case. She also mismatched DNA belonging to Andrea Ghira a wanted murderer and rapist (and nephew of one of her professors) to a corpse so it looked as if Ghira was dead. One of his surviving victims later reported seeing him alive & well & so tests were redone on the corpse which proved it wasn't Ghira. The obvious implication is that Vecchiotti doctored the DNA evidence so that the police would stop looking for Ghira. Her corruption is evidenced further by the fact she altered Dr Stefanoni's statement in her presentation to the Hellmann appeal. You will find reference to this in the Nencini report.
You have no evidence Knox and Sollecito are dangerous. Yet you make a declaration they are. Not persuasive.
Do you have any evidence they aren't dangerous Jackie? If my child starting carrying knives around, or staging burglary pranks, or started writing about brutal rapes – it would probably grab my attention, as i'm certain it would for you also.
Are you expecting more killings in Bari and Seattle?
They've been out of jail for a good few years now…..and nothing, nothing at all. Not a whisper of a hint of a crime by either.h
Everyone has been watching them. Just wait awhile. Wait until something makes them really angry.
Tell you what. Let's have you put your money where your mouth is…..My $100k wager says they stay on the right side of the law. Even money and if in ten years time the're clean you pay me $100k. Any crime and I pay you. Deal?
jackbutler5555 April 27, 2015 - 11:39 am
I just read your devastation of the argument that the exonerated defendants manipulated the scene.
Smart deduction. I missed that entirely. It dissolves the staged break in "theory."
Johnboy just waffles on. He has nothing to say and says it far too often. He has made too many demonstrably false claims to be afforded any credibility and I for one will be ignoring the clown from this point forward. Hope you are good Mate long time no speak.
Joan James April 9, 2015 - 2:22 pm
This isn't a matter of "believing". If you have done your homework and researched this case properly then you KNOW that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had nothing whatsoever to do with the brutal sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher. This isn't a case of US pressure or bungled investigation or Italian justice inconsistencies. This is a case of two innocent people who were, I believe, purposely involved by the Perugian prosecutor and police in a murder that was committed by one person,, Rudy Guede. This is a case of "la bella figura"…a case of saving face. The only forensic material found in Meredith's tiny bedroom belonged to Rudy Guede. His DNA was all over the room and in and on Meredith's body. No forensic material belonging to either Amanda or Raffaele was found in the room. There is no way that 3 people could brutally and bloodily murder a 4th person and only the victim's DNA and one perpetrator's DNA be found on the scene. That is scientifically impossible. The Perugian authorities simply couldn't backtrack when they realized they had made a mistake in arresting Amanda and Raffaele before a complete investigation was done and before Guede's DNA was discovered.
You question the decision in this case, but you present no reasonable arguments for guilt. You don't even mention Raffaele Sollecito or, more significantly, Rudy Guede, the actual and only killer. I can only surmise that you, like good, old corpus below and so many others, have a "thing" where Amanda is concerned. You all seem to care less about the real evidence and the real truth than you do in going after Amanda. It seems to be almost an obsession with this innocent woman? I guess I will never understand it. I have been interested in this case since the day Meredith's body was discovered (we were in Tuscany at the time) and I have yet to hear a reasonable, rational argument for guilt although the ether has been filled with the kind of comments corpus and his buddies continually make and article such as yours that are, basically, meaningless. Sorry, but that's my take…and it seems to also be the take of many, many experts around the world as well as the Court of Cassation in Italy. Perhaps you should give those facts some thought and do a little more research…or at least back up your "question"?!
Lol, amazing how even with an acquittal, Amanda's Kool Aid brigade STILL have to engage in rampant lying in order to make their icon look good.
There are judicial inconsistencies as Cassation has contradicted itself by annulling a court whose findings they had previously accepted, as well as one of the judges parroting the remarks of another judge whose court Cassation annulled partly due to said comments.
Cassation have decreed that Guede did NOT act alone, so you appear to be saying that their reasoning is now flawed, meaning Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted on flawed grounds.
Sollecito's DNA was also found in Meredith's room. Guede's DNA was not "all over the room", more DNA evidence actually existed against Knox and all of them left their DNA at the crime scene.
There were several prosecutors and the one who you Amandafans were so obsessed with hadn't been involved in the case for years.
The cops felt no need to "save face" when they let an innocent man go, so your tired meme is dismissed and laughed at.
Um, plenty of murders have been committed without the killer leaving DNA, so no it isn't scientifically impossible, it simply means that you're not very bright.
There were plenty of reasonable arguments for guilt presented at their trial and appeal, hence their first instance & second level convictions.
Oh I don't have a thing for Amanda (unlike her white knight syndrome afflicted middle aged male fanboys), she personally is of no interest to me. I simply think the judicial system failed an innocent family with their contradictory U- turn, but cannot comment definitively until I read the supreme court report.
Perhaps you should stop whinging at the author to provide facts when you haven't said one single solitary factual thing in your boring all kinds of wrong post. I'm convinced you Amandaloons have some disorder which makes it compulsive for you to lie…
How utterly pathetic and purile is your argument. There is zero, zip, nada, nil credible evidence to show that multiple attackers were involved. Reconstruction of murder scenes are by there very nature filled with assumptions and the vast majority of experts have ruled that a single attack was quite plausible. There is NO evidence to suggest that more than Rudy was involved….including Rudy's own testimony where he tries to implicate one other male whilst he was on the toilet. Only later does he ride with the prosecution in order to save his own sorry ass and suggest a multiple attack.
The was one attacker and he sits in jail!
Actually there is, covered in detail in the Massei report, p371.
So do you contend that the supreme court made their decisions on flawed reasoning, if there's no evidence, zero yaddayadda for multiple attackers? They decreed that Guede did not act alone, so is their reasoning flawed or not?
There's overwhelming evidence that all three were involved, hence the general surprise at Cassation's verdict. Your false and decidedly shrill howls otherwise is neither here nor there and of no interest to anyone rational who is familiar with the case.
Of course the fabricated and utterly purile reasoning that a whole bunch of people gathered together to commit a random murder is utterly and completely flawed.
There is NO evidence to back this up. The fact that two moronic judges hit on this idea is illusionary and this is underpinned by the final court ruling which has overruled the Massei and Nencini idiocy.
Right so you agree that the supreme court acquitted AK/RS based on flawed reasoning, cheers. 🙂
A dreadful reply by an idiot.
I asked you if you felt that the supreme court engaged in flawed reasoning in delivering their final verdict.
You stated that they did.
Too late to whinge about it now, Mike.
It appears the highest court in the land agrees with AK and RS supporters. They don't agree with the flawed reasoning of the pro-guilt faction. Look now who's whinging…it's good.
How do you know when you haven't read their report?
Their reasoning is on unsound grounds, due to them making the same comments they annulled a previous court for making. You're simply too stupid to realise this.
The Italian court CONTRADICTS itself? Seriously you jest. You of course wouldn't be saying that they are incompetent are you? Surely your opinion all along has been that they are just ROCK SOLID in every ruling that they give (except for Hellmann who because he disagreed with you is some kind of retard).
Well too bad Corpus. Deal with it. They ruled. Its innocent and seeing that their rulings are like a coin toss, it is irrelevant what "logic" they used, because they never worried about that before. The defendants are innocent both in reality and in the eyes of the law. Deal with it.
"Their reasoning is on unsound grounds,…"??? BS. You haven't seen their reasoning. It will come out in due course. It's bound to be logical and sensible reflecting the good work done by Hellmann.
Now go fly a kite.
First of all, Corps, notice I said " IT APPEARS." Amazing how much trouble you all have with hypothetical statements and you act like they're absolutes when they are not. It's an educated guess. I guess being the snotty ignoramous that mistakes his drivel for intelligent discourse wouldn't understand the difference. It APPEARS: Annulment=Innocent. End of.
APPEARS, Corps. Appears is not and never will be the ABSOLUTE.
Try reading what I wrote. For your ease of reference….
"The fact that two moronic judges hit on this idea is illusionary and this is underpinned by the final court ruling which has overruled the Massei and Nencini idiocy."
Where is the reference to the Supreme Court in Rome?
So you have reading comprehension problems, gotcha.
Do you think that Cassation's verdict:
1 AK/RS acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
2 Guede did not act alone
3 AK guilty of Callunnia
Is done on sound or unsound grounds? Solid logical reasoning or flawed reasoning?
I really wondered that when your predictions didn't come true you would learn some humility. I see that I was wrong about that. After you have been so thoroughly defeated, you would think that you would at least have some dignity and not be such a pompous jerk, but you have charged back into the "Amandaloons", "stupid", "ignorant" "reading comprehensions" and so on. Actually there is an Amandaloon and that is YOU.
Let me clue you in. Not only the evidence phase is "over", but the trial is over the whole affair is over and your whining about it is absolutely hilarious. Only YOU would care what the judges write in their justification so you can whine that it is contradictory. Why you care is probably just your pride talking, so you can write some scathing post. Who cares?!? Only you Corpus.
What the rest of the world cares about is that they ruled and its ACQUITTED. That's it. Game over. Whine away Corpus. Rehash the evidence all you want. Try to point out that the court was "contradictory". STry to salvage your ego there. But it matters not. Not one bit.
"Right so you agree that the supreme court acquitted AK/RS based on flawed reasoning, cheers. :)"
NO – I do not agree. Get it?
You would think Knoxies would be elated by the verdict. It seems there is big anger cos most people still think she is a murderer.
Guilty. Acquitted. Guilty. Acquitted.
Looks to me like the Italian system is about the same as throwing a coin and their reasoning all along has been as foolish as anyone could ask. Who cares. The FINAL ruling is "acquits". Whine all you want.
I think Amanda Knox is a killer. I am comfortable knowing the scales always Balance in the end. She is a liar too.
Massei ANNULLED Corpus and totally irrelevant. Boy it feels fun saying that!
The first time, Cassation didn't follow the letter of the law when they willfully ignored the protocol of checking the legalities and not reviewing evidence in the Hellmann trial, to reviewing it anyway and consequently coming to their flawed, inexperienced verdict annulling Hellmann.
Joan, thank you for taking the trouble to comment on my article. I am sorry that you were disappointed that I failed to mention other aspects of the case.
However in an article such as this, I am examining just one aspect, not the whole case. Most people who read are most probably fully conversant with the putative scenarios, and do not need me to remind them. There are various sites on the web which perform this very function.
But I shall be writing about Guede, and his proposed request for a new trial. I shall also be examining many peripheral aspects of the case, which I hope you and others will find stimulating.
moniker April 12, 2015 - 8:00 am
Guede's lawyer has denied there is any request for a new trial. Fact check before writing is generally a sound rule for most
Danielle Simone April 12, 2015 - 8:22 am
Certainly is, but when reputable newspapers like THE TIMES report this as a fact, then I tend to believe them. Bit of back peddling IMO until MReport. Thanks for info though!
Actually, Obama's Administration interfering is not that far fetched a possibility. Why wouldn't Obama's administration get involved with this case? It created and promoted a fake twitter (ZunZuneo) and distributed it in Havana in an attempt to encourage discord between Cuban youth and their government (fortunately they used a greedy bumbling double agent to handle it (Yoani Sanchez) so the project fell on its USAID face. A year later, Obama actually bragged about sending people to Israel to help Netenyahu's opposition. That's how badly Obama didn't want "Bibi" as he's affectionately called to win his election. And it is also as someone suggested "a case of saving face." It happens all the time. Why is anyone surprised?
I don't think the US government was that interested in Knox actually. The US has either approved extradition for, or else flat out extradited its citizens simply to face trial, before. Here you had a conviction and upheld conviction upon appeal. Had the supreme court had have finalized the conviction, I doubt if extradition would have been much of an issue.
That said, the supreme court have contradicted themselves and seemingly annulled rulings they had previously accepted, which is a discrepancy either way you cut it.
IF- and it's a big "IF" to clarify- some form of chicanery did in fact occur, then I'd be more inclined to suspect the person who the cops are investigating for allegedly already interfering with an investigation. However, nobody can really say anything until the supreme court report is released.
Yes, we certainly respect your opinion of how the US would have reacted to a guilty verdict based on your GREAT record of predicting how the ISC would rule!
You always make it personal..with the insults, and all. lol
Sean Lamb April 9, 2015 - 6:15 pm
Dear Danielle,
I am sorry to hear you got criticized on twitter for a few hours. I can certainly understand how this must have been a highly upsetting experience for you. You will appreciate that a young woman, Amanda Knox, has been at the receiving end of a tsunami of online abuse and criticism for over 3 years now and this has been an extremely difficult period for her.
So I am sure you will understand the passion with which her supporters and friends wish to see this online campaign totally end with the conclusion of Italy's highest court that there was absolutely no chance of a conviction of Amanda Knox and her immediate acquittal.
James Moninger April 9, 2015 - 7:39 pm
I find it disingenuous to use Danielle's torment on Twitter as an excuse to regurgitate more pap about the long-suffering Knox. I have not done research to back this up, but I believe the reason so many people continue to dislike Knox, despite the outcome of her case, is the obnoxious, pushy, and strident nature of her core supporters. The propensity of Knox supporters to continue the propaganda after the case is concluded causes me to wonder if Amanda Knox has become a religion to some.
Mr Moninger, I wish no way to diminish the sheer agony of Danielle's online crucifixion (that Exonerate Knox is a really mean girl), but merely to ask her to reflect on the experience of Amanda Knox and why her supporters – even those as obnoxious, pushy and strident as your humble servant – might be keen for it to cease.
Danielle has an opinion regarding the innocence or otherwise of Amanda Knox – doubtless based on a keen observation of her facial muscles in TV interviews. That's nice. But the people who viewed the entire case file have absolutely no doubt as to her innocence – not simply that there was no evidence to justify a conviction – but even that there was no hope of a process that looked for further evidence would be able to uncover any, hence the use of the phrase "unbridgeable in a further appeal" . As such perhaps Danielle and others like her should keep their views, no matter how sincere, to themselves. At least until they have read the reasoning of the court.
James Moninger April 10, 2015 - 12:24 pm
I have never doubted the innocence of the defendants in this case.
Yet another attempt, Sean Lamb, to suppress competing views. I wish I had one of your US dollars for the number of times I've been told to move on, to hold my tongue ( or keyboard ), as if somehow being a 'doubter' makes one an ethically inferior person!
Danielle Simone April 9, 2015 - 8:19 pm
James, thank you for your perspicacious comment. Yes, I am also repelled by the need to elevate Knox to a level that is impossible to live up to. I also think she would serve herself better by NOT publicising the 'fact' that prayers were said for Meredith after the acquittal, and NOT presenting herself as a public figure on the cusp of a new venture to help wrongly convicted people. It's too soon for all this, and strikes me as false. Sollecito's silence is more dignified.
Danielle, thank you for your insightful analysis of the respective gravitas shown by Amanda Knox and Rafaelle Sollecito.
Mr Sollecito will doubtless be highly appreciative by your judgement that he has been "dignified". My understanding is Ms Knox is either an atheist or buddhist (or both) and so if prayers were said (and she has made no mention of this – it is just a rumor from a particularly garrulous family friend) then her participation would have been in deference to the religious feelings of her parents.
If we tote up the various media appearances between the two, then Amanda Knox had a brief impromptu appearance before the media on the steps of her mother's house, a statement from her lawyers and a letter to her local paper thanking the people who had supported her and promising to help other wrongfully convicted people in future. Rafaelle Sollecito has had a statement from lawyers, a 30 minute formal press conference in Rome and his father and sister discussing the case on a flagship TV program.
In my view had Amanda Knox made any less comment on the verdict she would have been in danger of being labelled surly or ungracious. Otherwise I don't see how she could have done more to avoid the limelight.
Acquittal is not enough. Knox must be deified and unbelievers like the Kercher family must exonerate her in the court of public opinion, is how her supporters seem to feel.
Sean Lamb April 10, 2015 - 3:49 am
I tell you what you couldn't make up and that is someone spending 7 years and 3939 internet posts on a criminal case and getting it completely and totally wrong.
Any idea what Craig Norris is going to do with his 16 gigabytes of Twitter screenshots?
How pray tell did we get it "completely and totally wrong"?
We contended that there were multiple attackers, which Cassation have also decreed.
We contended that Knox was guilty of Callunnia, which Cassation also decreed.
We contended that Knox and the other dude you never cared about were guilty of acting with Rudy Guede in the murder of Meredith Kercher, which Cassation did not decree, but however acquitted on insufficient evidence, meaning they did not necessarily reject the evidence, but apparently found that it wasn't enough to convict.
I asked her supporters repeatedly over the years to identify any valid errors that occurred at their trial & appeal, which would support your contention of an unfair trial. You guys consistently refused to back up your bluster.
Yet straight away I can identify valid errors in Cassation's ruling, such as making the same remarks they previously annulled another appellate for making and annulling a court whose findings they had previously accepted.
Basically I can back up my objections and validate my position, unlike you creepy types who like 'em to get away with it.
Now, are you saying that the supreme court's reasoning is sound and solid when they decree that:
1. Amanda Knox & Raffaelle Sollecito are found not guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher due to insufficient evidence under paragraph 2, article 530 of the Italian criminal procedure.
2 Rudy Herman Guede did not act alone committing the murder of Meredith Kercher.
3 Amanda Knox is guilty of the crime of Callunnia.
A court's reasoning in delivering its verdict is based on either sound or unsound grounds, meaning you don't get to cherry pick the court's final verdict.
So… which is it? Do you agree that Cassation's final ruling is on sound grounds or not?
Oh and Craig Norris is worth 10 of you Sean.
You can only "validate" your position to yourself. So your point is that the courts reasoning is all sound or unsound and therefore if they are right about them not being guilty they must also have to be right about the Callunia charge or that Guede didn't act alone.
What a tricky little person you are Corpus. Let me spell it out for you the reality. The ruling was ACQUITS. That's it. That's all that matters.
Sean Lamb April 10, 2015 - 6:28 pm
Corpus – I am getting a distinct air of "tis but a scratch" coming from you these days.
Shall we call it a draw?
Your inability to address the points raised are duly noticed, just as they were duly noted over the previous years.
So… who you gonna shill for next Sean? Heather Mack? Or is she not white enough for you?
Corpus – it is not that I am unable to, I simply see no need to.
Jodi Arias looks like she got a really raw deal. A bit like Amanda Knox she appears to have been surrounded by "supporters" giving her very bad advice – including trying to avoid the death penalty by giving a false confession that she killed Travis Alexander because he was a pedophile or something equally absurd.
"false accusation of her innocent boss potentially could have resulted in a wrongful conviction".
Well if there is ANYTHING that shows the complete and utter incompetence of the Italian police and judicial system that would be it! Certainly things like solid evidence don't matter too much in Italy, all it takes is a few slaps to a girl after midnight to get an accusation and wow, we are almost to a wrongful conviction! Glad that you pointed that out.
Well, Jack, is that not the same incompetent judiciary which has just acquitted the pair? Maybe you mistrust the reasons behind the acquittal then?
Maybe I could care less what their reasoning is. The Italian Judiciary has so far gone from 'guilty' to "acquits" to "annul acquits' to "guilty" to 'annul guilty".
And I'm supposed to respect their "reasoning"? Ha ha ha ha ha ha. I have as much respect for what a 10 year old kid in Mongolia thinks of their case as I do what the 'reasoning" of the Italian judiciary. The only importance that they have is that they have the force of law. ACQUITS. That's it. Game over.
Dr. Joseph Zoo April 10, 2015 - 6:45 pm
More trials are upcoming so it's certainly not "game over".
You've been served notice of your impending arrest?
The federal marshals surrounding her house asked me to ask you if it's all right if they can go home now.
This is where I completely agree, Corpus Vile. This beatification of Amanda, soon to become deification is repellant to me. I am sure she herself would not wish for this platform.
James Moninger April 10, 2015 - 9:28 pm
I agree that Knox probably has no interest in being a public figure, yet her supporters continue to push for her beatification, and harshly attack anyone who questions it. Makes me think of Scientology.
Guilters DEFINITELY remind me of Scientologists. And I say that based on personal experience stretching back to 1952. Fantacizers and followers of their own delusions.
…I think Amanda participated in the abuse…with the help of her sock alter egos.
Bruce Fischer April 10, 2015 - 3:18 am
Danielle, please direct me to those that have attempted to elevate Knox to a "level that is impossible to live up to."
Ryan Ferguson was exonerated after spending a decade in prison for a crime he did not commit. When he was released, he stated that he would work to help others that have been wrongfully convicted. He now advocates for those that have been wrongfully convicted.
You said it was too soon for Amanda to do that. When is a good time for an exonerated person to start advocating for others? Do you have any recommendations? Did Ryan start too soon? If so, why do you see a benefit in a delay?
Well Bruce Fischer, perhaps you could take a stroll on Twitter, or follow FB support page to see what I mean.
As for your other question, I recommend a delay for many reasons, but for now, rightly or wrongly, in the court of public opinion Knox is not an innocent person. The tide has not yet turned in her favour, and support for her seems to reside with those who were already supporters. So, fair or unfair, she would be doing no wrongfully convicted person a favour at the moment. Maybe if the ISC motivation report inspires trust in her, then we can unite behind her, and say, "Go ahead!"
Second, she has a conviction for "CALLUNNIA", and whatever the circumstances she did accuse an innocent man. Even the 2011 acquittal upheld this ruling, and that is one of the reasons I think she would be ill advised to begin this charitable venture at present.
Dear Danielle
Ms Knox does not need to wait until you unite behind her for the simple reason your opinion in this matter is of no value, your understanding of the case has been shown to be wrongheaded and your judgement proven to be utterly worthless.
So Ms Knox does not need to await on permission from you or any other members of the small clique of like-minded fools before embarking on any of her future ventures.
Presently Ms Knox does have a conviction for Callunia, but not, I suspect, for long. The upcoming motivations report will probably prompt a judicial review to clear this conviction. If not, the ECHR will request Italy to do so sometime in 2016 or 2017.
The ECHR cannot and will not remove Knox's conviction. You're comment is disgusting and should be removed.
Sean Lamb, I see you've abandoned your earlier attempts at irony and are now in full frontal attack mode.
This is fine with me.
But you have just demonstrated the very behaviour I examined in my article!
Ms Knox must be first and foremost, and cannot be ever called to account for her actions or words, can she? At all times she must be portrayed as the poor victim of a plot to bring her down.
Is she guilty? I really don't know. However if she presents herself as a public figure and an advocate of justice, then she can expect scrutiny from those who do not idolise her.
This appears to have escaped your attention but Knox has been called to account for actions and her words by the Italian judicial system and that same judicial system has spoken: not guilty.
Precisely what standing do you have to call her to account? Why do you rate your judgement as superior to that of the Court of Cassation?
Of course it is possible – with due care to legal niceties of the libel law – to express an opinion that Amanda Knox is guilty of murder. Just don't expect to win much respect for this outside a small company of complete fruit loops.
Indeed Shaun Lamb, and I accept that verdict, even though I have my doubts about the reasoning behind it. This is why my articles are based around the aftermath and fall out from the case.
Your criticism apply to those with whom you agree?
..the conviction for Callunia is also final.
Danielle, please remove the below comment from Sean Lamb. Thank you.
Dr Joseph Zoo, although I see that Sean Lamb has made a personal and unwarranted attack on me, I will not reply to him in kind. I am a liberal, and will tolerate any mudslinging directed at me. I am a patient person and am rarely rattled.
But I do thank you for your support.
Dr. Joseph Zoo April 10, 2015 - 11:03 pm
You're entirely welcome Danielle. Leaving his reprehensible comment is actually solid proof of your above article's truth.
Do you know whether this latest ruling still upholds her calumny charge? Isn't it premature to comment on that if you don't know for sure, or do you know?
As to what people think about whether she's innocent or not, my perception is that it is pretty equal on both verdicts as to public opinion. I find your comment misleading suggesting " in the court of public opinion Knox is not an innocent person" when it is not the majority who think she's guilty, either.
I think you're right she should wait at least in a public way. She could still do things to help people in a private and anonymous way until we know the motivation report.
OJ was going to find the real killer too…
James, can you please explain where you are seeing this "propaganda" as you describe it? Our organization has done very little to promote the facts of the case now that the ISC has exonerated Amanda and Raffaele. There is no need to do so. We announced the good news and posted relevant links. That's it. Our work is done on this case.
Are you basing your conclusions on anonymous posters on comments sections? Twitter? Because you certainly are not describing the activities of Amanda and Raffaele's core supporters.
Bruce, I am basing my remarks strictly on comment sections such as this one that seem to be unavoidable tag-alongs to any story about the case.
Chokey Gall April 11, 2015 - 1:54 pm
Clearly your "work" isn't done, Bruce. I will say this; you are without a doubt one of the most deceptive and dishonest people I have ever encountered following the case these past 7 years. What happened to your own statement when you first started "Injustice In Perugia" that the Kercher family were "off limits"? What changed for you? Stop bullshitting people. You welcome and condone attacks on Meredith Kercher's family. You always have.
IIP altered evidence and photo shopped even more.
Why are they still so angry?
Sean, indeed I do understand that people are passionate in their defence of Amanda. But what I fail to understand is the need for hatred, emanating from those who feel they have moral superiority. Therein lies the paradox!
Karen April 10, 2015 - 1:25 am
What you are calling a paradox is, in reality a knee-jerk defensive reaction to the various Kafkatraps that you and the others employ. You know exactly what you are doing, don't play dumb, it belies your resume.
Could you point me in the direction of AK supporters emanating hatred, because my experience so far has been that far more hatred has been coming from the pro-guilt faction.
Would you consider pro-guilt people accusing AK supporters of being child rapists and pedophiles as emanating hatred by chance?
Dr. Joseph Zoo April 11, 2015 - 10:52 am
Do your own research if you are capable. I suggest you try out this easy to use website:
http://www.google.com
Was I asking you? Are you now pretending to be this kindhearted, intelligent woman? Just kidding. I know you couldn't possibly be her. It's time you admit the hatred coming from your side.
Answer this one question or don't respond:
Why do you keep posting insults of me and others?
What insults of you or of others are you even talking about? Because I called you a dingbat? Saying people's silly insults back to them? We have a history, I have a right to call you an innocent insult such as "dingbat" after the nastiest of nasty things you've posted. I've witnessed your name changing, and you know it.
I'm still waiting to hear what insults I supposedly gave.
Was it the insult when I said, "Joe Zoo wouldn't know the truth if it nibbled his ear and kissed his nose"? Oh yeah, mean mean phad, all right.
Oh, you mean the pseudonyms under which pro-guilt pretend to be innocentisti for the sake of spewing insults(racist I might add)to their heart's content? Don't worry, I've seen enough of those to know.
Danielle Simone April 10, 2015 - 12:12 pm
No, it was not an upsetting experience, Sean Lamb, just an enlightening one. I certainly do understand that those who perceive Amanda Knox as innocent have a right to support her, but it is the adulation and the elevation of her to cult status which I found disturbing.
I have to disagree that the supporters wish an end to the matter. Some supporters maybe, like yourself, but my experience suggests otherwise.
Joan James April 10, 2015 - 2:35 pm
Daneille, there is nothing I would like better than to see discussion on this case end completely, however that becomes difficult when articles like yours continue to be published. I do not "idolize" Amanda Knox…I don't know Amanda Knox…I do know she is innocent of the murder of Meredith Kercher and that she has suffered from this tragic situation for 7-1/2 years and it needs to stop.
I simply wanted justice to be done when I got involved in this case and I am satisfied now that it has been accomplished. I don't really care whether you personally believe in her innocence or not…what I do care about is that you…and others (I hesitate to use the word "guilters", but it is appropriate for some?) continue to publish articles like this one that question…and question…and question. As long as YOU keep it alive, it will breathe and you will get comments and, further, I have to believe you are inviting comments supporting Amanda when you publish articles like this one. Have you thought about simply letting this case go and finding another subject?
Joan James. I have written many articles on differing subjects, and hope to move to others as well as this case. I am frankly amazed at the way you and others want me to 'move on' and would prefer to suppress competing views now that your goal has been accomplished.
No Sean Lamb, it was not upsetting, but thanks for your concern. It was an enlightening experience rather than anything else. Yes I do think Amanda must have been traumatised by the aforementioned insults, and would never condone such behaviour.
Unfortunately this online campaign you speak of has not ended, and I do not foresee a conclusion, precisely because neither "side" wishes it to end. I have been accused of being a 'guilter' as if this were akin to being a leper.
I confess I find Knox insincere, but is she guilty? I really don't know. I wasn't there. My aim in this article was to highlight the extreme lengths SOME 'supporters' go to in support of their idol- as if any criticism of her must be suppressed, and those not conforming to the orthodoxy of this cult must of course be denigrated as heretics.
Danielle was being abused by Knox fans….
I think Amanda Knox is a guilty killer…and so did 2 courts. I know it is difficult to be a convicted liar, but you should get over it. Let's see what the motivations say.
Dr. Joseph Zoo April 9, 2015 - 9:56 pm
Rudy Guede may now get a new trial and his testimony would add new evidence which would then force SC to annul the unlawful verdict.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/11522333/Rudy-Guede-calls-for-retrial-after-Amanda-Knox-acquitted-of-Meredith-Kercher-murder.html
A newspaper repeats a flippant statement by a lying murderer and suddenly it becomes fact. If Rudy goes for another trial the likelihood of getting an extended sentence is great. I doubt even he is this dumb.
Video: #rudyguede accuses #amandaknox & #raffaelesollecito of the murder of #meredithkercher http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2icpu8_2011-06-27-rudy-guede_school
Rubbish. It's not what he says. What he does say is that he thinks they (A&R) were there (at the murder scene). That's utter nonsense. It's like saying I watched a football match and I THINK Beckham was playing. ……he "thinks" they were there? Oh please this so obviously a half hearted lie to try to implicate people were not at the murder scene by hinting that he "thinks" they might possibly, maybe perhaps have possibly been there……but he can't quite remember.
Oh boy!! I weep at the gullibility of those who swallow these lies. Or do the likes of Zoo just WANT to believe rubbish.
Upcoming trials: #raffaelesollecito – 4-30 #amandaknox – 6-9 #rudyguede – tba
#amandaknox In Big Complication For Cassation Guede Demands New Trial To Prove He Was Not "Accomplice Of Myself"
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/in_big_complication_for_cassation_guede_demands_new_trial_to_prove/
Rubbish written by idiots who lie through their teeth. Quoting from this means you're desperate.
Professor Jonny Johnson April 11, 2015 - 10:33 pm
Which parts are rubbish, specifically Mike? And what exactly is Dr Zoo desperate for, specifically Mike?
You'll forgive posters like me who think the fan club of Knox look a little desperate. What are you doing on the internet proclaiming her innocence when the courts have already ruled in her favour, Mike? What is worrying you?
truejustice.org is rubbish. The entire site is run by those with evil intention and complete bias which destroys the credibility of this propaganda site.
Thankyou Dr Joseph Zoo for pointing me towards this informative article.
You're very welcome Danielle. Thank you too for writing your above article. There will be much more on this case for years to come. Amanda Knox's next trial is on 6-9 and her accomplice Raffaele Sollecito's next day in court is coming right up on 4-30. Then there will be the unlawful verdict report and the wrongful death lawsuits. Then there is the current trial of Amanda Knox's parents now going on in Florence. Also Raffaele Sollecito's father is currently under investigation for his illegal involvement in this case. Despite what Bruce Bankrupt says, this will go on for years and years.
#raffaelesollecito Raffaele Sollecito: "I never want to see #AmandaKnox again" But he may have to soon! http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4397094.ece
He did NOT say this. Lies!
November 08th 2007, in front of Judge Matteini Sollecito said "ʺI wish to not see Amanda ever again."
Before suggesting posters are lying, at least do a little homework. Thank you.
Typical blindly biased statement taking things out of context.
The Hardtalk host doesn't look like Judge Matteini…Are you suggesting the judge is also a host on Hard Talk? Is this what you want us to believe, Mike?
What part of "she is my friend" and "I never want to see her again" are you struggling with? Clearly the latter comment is taken out of context.
Did Sollecito lie in front of Judge Matteini then? Lying to a Judge or the Police is never a good idea during a murder investigation Mike, surely you agree with that?
Cone now! This is "baby talk". Life is not static. He says "we are friends". Whatever rift that existing is healed so it has no relevance to today.
They are friends right now….end of…..
Who said they weren't friends right now Mike? It makes no difference to anything anyway, they were both cleared. They could be mortal enemies, again I don't see what relevance it has…
All i'm saying is at the time of Matteini he said he didn't want to see her again, thats all. It doesn't matter.
Selective (miss)quote and trying to underpin your collapsing
Proof that A&R are friends…
That's why you think they are killers? Or is this just some gossipy stuff that helps you get through the day.
Please point me to the part where I think "they are killers" Jackie? If you are unable to, then withdraw the comment and apologise. We have done this song and dance long enough to know I'll need to see exactly where I said in my comment "they are killers". Where is it Jackie?
Are you suggesting the court recorder at Matteini is also lying now? You believe that everyone lied other than Knox and Hellmann? Is this your final answer?
I certainly apologize for lumping you in with people who still think the accused committed the murder.
Uh…"Please point me to the part where" I said anything about this court recorder person.
Thank you for you apology Jackie, it means a great deal when one of the fan club can admit they are wrong.
You said "Thats why you think" – hence the need for an apology.
I said "Are you suggesting" – hence the need for an answer.
Thanks Jackie 😉
Dr. Joseph Zoo April 9, 2015 - 10:07 pm
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/27/amanda_knox_verdict_the_real_evidence_and_why_almost_everything_you_think_you_know_about_the_case_is_wrong/
Danielle, your brief bio above shows that you have an exciting career as a journalist. I think that's great and I wish you success. I think you will find that you are a little late to this discussion. The angry online debate is fading fast. You may have noticed that interest is waning by the 8 Facebook likes and 18 tweets you have received on this post. Attempting to vilify Amanda Knox is old news. No credible journalist would have any interest in trying to get into the action now. In fact, playing that game is about as logical as Netflix opening up a new chain of video stores.
Ah Bruce Fischer, then maybe I am not a credible journalist eh? No problem, you have a right to your opinion of me. No, I had not noticed that interest in this case is waning, but I am flattered that you have taken such an interest in how my article has been received.
Maybe my article from last week ( on this site) about care of the elderly would be more to your taste? You can read it, it's still available. This is a subject I feel passionate about, and had hoped to promote. But guess how many comments it received? None. Very disappointing.
However, my articles on the ex co- defendants elicit interest way beyond my expectations! And you say that interest is waning. I don't think so!
Jannie April 10, 2015 - 10:05 pm
Bruce appears to be a bit two faced here. He's attempted to start off with the charm offensive praising you, but then launches a thinly veiled attack on your credibility as a journalist in the very same post.
Bruce then tries to make out that discussing the case is old news and pointless, which is just another thinly veiled attempt to stop any discussion altogether simply because he has the verdict that he wants now.
You've probably already figured it out, but how much trust do we put in a person that tries to silence the other side of the discussion and someone that is as two faced as Bruce?
Do you believe all advocacy sites which prohibits opinions from the other side are to be similarly criticized?
Jannie April 11, 2015 - 9:10 pm
Yes, It works both ways.
Do you believe that someone leaving posts unmoderated that are hateful towards the family of a murder victim even after they've been pointed out to them is morally acceptable?
I'll leave it to the self righteous to offer their judgments on moral acceptability. I'll leave it to the reader to form an opinion as to whether these judgments are narrowly focused.
Dr. Joseph Zoo April 10, 2015 - 8:56 am
Everyone don't listen to Bruce Fis(c)her below as he is only trying to erase the memory of Meredith Kercher and attempting to rebrand the image of his employer and convicted felonious liar Amanda Knox. He is a meaningless fur coat clerk in a mall in the Chicago area who has filed for bankruptcy three (3) times in his life in order to escape repayment of debts. Like his employer, Amanda Knox, his whole life is a lie. Nothing that he says or writes can be taken seriously.
Doctor, with all due respect, your post is nonsense. I have had dialogs with Bruce Fischer for more than a year. He and I don't agree on much, but I have NEVER heard him denigrate the Kercher family in any way. The remainder of your post is a loosely-bound ad hominem attack that indicates you have a larger axe to grind with this person than you let on. Physician, heal thyself.
He said the Kercher family were not above criticism on his website and lied to me on another forum that he didn't permit attacks on the Kerchers on his website, when an utterly consistent string of attacks have taken place there on the Kerchers and Meredith herself. He put out photoshopped pictures of an enlarged bathmat footprint to try and pass it of as Guede's, as well as photoshopped pics of Meredith and Knox together under the caption "friends", on twitter, which is completely denigrating the victim and her family. Shame you can't see that.
Fischer is quite frankly a grubby would-be profiteer sleazeball with no ethics, integrity or decency in him at all, whatsoever.
"Photoshopped pics of Meredith and Knox".
WELL QUICK. LET Dr. Joseph Zoo know that photoshopped pictures of Amanda makes one a sleazeball! There is one for every post he makes!
Amanda & Rudy Guede are both alive to defend themselves in case you hadn't noticed.
Meredith Kercher was murdered and her photo photoshopped next to a person who her family believe/d was responsible for the death of their daughter, and you're making excuses for it and Fischer doing it? Shocking.
Thank you my eminent colleague. I really appreciate that you have graced "jack" with a response. He should feel very fortunate.
The Professor is wise beyond his years.
Amelia1981Jones May 16, 2015 - 12:52 am
You are such a moron. You don't have the first idea of how a truly educated person would communicate. Every comment of yours simply gives more evidence for your real standard of education. You did not even finish high school! That is a fact.
Don't know about Photo-shopping, but you seem to think that being accused of murder, having your reputation dragged through the mud, your family's too, nearly bankrupted in defense, still having to look over your shoulder even after the Highest Court in the land declared innocent(of which there's been reminder in this thread), and forever will be followed by this absolute travesty and tragedy of which your face becomes one of the most infamous recognized world wide, destroying any chance of privacy or normal life for the rest of your life that you'll ever have, I don't know, in some cases some might think this a fate worse than death.
Me thinks you need to watch The Crucible again(if you haven't already) about what witch hunts do to people, here the final scene of John Proctor choosing to die rather than sully his own reputation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Eel02K-WPo
Thanks Daniel Day-Lewis.
You lost my interest with "you seem to think" — try this Bri, don't tell me what I do or do not think. Reword your response, be pleasant, apologise for suggesting you know what I think and take it from there.
There was guilter watchin, who photo shopped Meredith's photo onto porn. Seems like he is stuck in pre pubescence.
Why do you constantly shout in capital letters?
Empty vessels make most noise.
James Moninger, Dr Joseph Zoo makes some excellent points, but I have to agree that these are negated by his ad hominem and totally unnecessary attack on Bruce Fischer. Bruce does not seem to have liked my article much, but I join with you in expressing a desire for cordiality and civility towards him.
Thank you Danielle. But what I wrote above is all true. We have done background checks on Bruce Fischer and we know all about him. Public court records do not lie.
As a person that has covered several murder trials, I can assure you that court records do not lie but the people that write court records, do write lies all the time. The lies included in charges / indictments are what the lawyers/barristers need to resolve. Charges / indictments for instance are written by prosecutors and they throw everything at the accused to see "what sticks" like throwing spaghetti on a wall.
With respect, so do the defence, who pay experts to say whatever they wish them to say. I have no issue with that either as a defence lawyer should zealously defend his/her client. Verdicts are reached after all arguments, prosecution and defence are heard and presented to a jury and that's the way it should be.
My issue is that the supreme court annulled the findings of her trial under Massei, whose findings they previously had accepted. IOW, five individual Cassation judges were able to overturn what their actual counterparts had accepted.The Supreme Court overturned itself as a body.
The supreme court of any land is supposed to be the final say on matters.
If the Italian supreme court can contradict and overrule itself, then how can it justify itself as the authority for being the final decision maker?
How can any family of murder victims truly get closure, if such inherent contradictions exist?
To clarify, I fully accept their decision, but feel that their actual system seems to be inherently flawed due to this.
Contrary to what Amanda's fan club have falsely propagated, those of us who believe that AK/RS should have been convicted do not "hate" them or even know them. We simply felt they were involved in a brutal crime after assessing the evidence and reading the primary sources.
Anyone who states that there was no evidence is clearly lying, ignorance wouldn't cover it in a case that garnered such attention. Which begs the question, why? Why engage in dishonesty if one's cause is so just?
The hater meme was simply a form of obfuscation to avoid acknowledging that there was very damning evidence against both, even if one removed the DNA evidence. Consistent lying and changing of alibis is damning enough evidence against any suspect in a murder investigation/trial, as well as detailed knowledge of the crime that even the cops didn't know and independent witness corroboration.
It's why Cassation's decision is so bizarre as if one looks at the totality of the case, guilt is a slam dunk. LOTS of people are currently in western prisons convicted on far less evidence. It's why I feel that the Italian judicial system failed the Kercher family and will probably fail future victims, if the perps are of a certain class and privilege.
This had nothing to do with hate. I'm simply heartened that people from all nationalities and walks of life came together to do the decent thing and stand up for truth and victims. That is something that can never be taken away from them and they've restored my faith in humanity with their refutation of lies and PR.
There's really no such thing a "PR" when on trial for ones' life in a murder case; it's called "mounting a defense"…one in which she went without for quite some time; Knox and/or Sollecito aren't some CEO or politician that got caught with a young intern, or found on suspicion of negligent DUI or something. Nor is this their choosing to having been made internationally infamous…and this goes whether one believes them innocent or guilty.
There is no death sentence in Italy so stop exaggerating you blithering idiot.
You can't on one hand keep telling us how easy Italy is on the sentencing of Guede, and he'll be walking the streets any day now, only then to flip it for the thing from Seattle by trying and convince us she was on trial for her life.
Gogerty Marriott are really a PR firm. There's no "no really such thing" about it. That's what they do, that's what David Marriott is known for. He isn't known as a coat salesman who does the odd Saturday PR job for Curt.
Hiring PR was a smart move. In hindsight, it would have been a better move to bring in expertise in Italy and the UK, where police-inspired gossip ran rampant.
Those two countries were at the core of pre-trial publicity which harmed the defense. The tabloid-like approach by the newspapers in England and Northern Ireland and the TV media in Italy drove this anti-Knox fervor.
The UK has a lot to be proud of but those news stands outside of the shops are not a source of national pride.
I never claimed there was a death penalty; I've said on trial for their lives or their lives destroyed, which is the case when facing a three decade sentence but even more being labeled as internationally infamous rapists and murderers of which they will never not have the albatross of this sullied reputation round their necks from some corner; their lives forever altered by something they were not even an accessory to.
Again with the "PR" spin; it's funny all those who are basically assisting her pro bono, not least of which the expectations are she should remain silent when she was largely tried in the lavatory or the public forum, a media trial and confiction by fire, before so much as a peep was ever heard from her defense.
I'd ad you are also 100% correct the Supreme Court needs to explain itself; it really needs to order a top to bottom review as well perhaps Italy itself needs to reconsider its system of justice, partly per my thinking that criminal/civil need to be separate, and the prosecutors can't be chief investigator/detective, legal pursuer, as well practically judges themselves. They've also gotta get rid of a lot of the slander/libel/calumnia/reputation/honor-violation stuff, particularly for anyone on trial for their life who should otherwise be given wide berth. Even for example the Lumumba verdict, Amanda should've potentially faced some sort of "obstruction of justice" charge over if it turned out she was to be charged as a defendant, however this would've thus been dropped once declared innocent as it was her thus being put in jeopardy that caused; the same true now for the Lumumba verdict as quite problematic now given her innocent verdict, that she was not pressured into something so not at fault. Or if at fault/culpable in some way and deserved of said penalty, that the Perugian authorities do not also then fact some sort of legal punishment. For one as she thus in a sense gave false testimony against herself of which in most every conceivable situation thus implies coercion of some kind, of which ultimately the Perugians persecuted 3 innocents and let 1 guilty off with practically only a slap on the wrist. Made worse that they might be directly responsible for his being back in Perugia and not behind bars in Milan as well he got to Germany when it may have be assumed his being a reasonable suspect from Day 1. They had their "theory" though whereby Guede didn't fit in cause the burglary staged, meanwhile they could of had his prints ID'd in hours(a good thing to do in a murder case) particularly as he was known to the locals(wouldnt've had to go national searching). Further, some of these prints on Meredith's purse which could've been bagged and removed as soon as the "real" cops arrived on scene. -A murderer on the loose after all isn't just about solving the crime at hand, but also is a top priority if remaining not under police scrutiny that he be found ASAP, even if only as a suspect that can be monitored or otherwise taken off the streets.
Here is more about the real Bruce Fischer:
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/disarray_and_decay_in_the_pro-knox_parade_1_bruce_fischers_epidemic_of/
So how about the real Dr. Joseph Zoo? Where are your research papers? Where are your publications? That is what Drs with Phds "do". They don't sit behind computer screens, making nasty comments about others. I don't know much about Bruce Fischer, but I would take anything opinion of his before your own. At least he doesn't resort to bogus titles, lies about his educational background, and a life of sitting behind a computer, fantasising about being someone he is not!
Why. He attacked me and encouraged others to do the same. He deserves no respect. He lies too.
I have an email from Fischer acknowledging Kercher family abuse on his blog, he made a commitment to put a stop to it, only for further posts to appear on his blog attacking Meredith's family.
His blog has posted personal details on people who disagreed with the way he and his forum members conduct themselves. He permitted, against the wishes of his co-moderator Sarah Snyder, people to be called sexual deviants, alcoholics and more. He permitted and encouraged employers to be contacted with the same libellous junk. The private section of his forum spoke of ways to discredit the Kercher family.
An Italian woman was recently harassed by members of his blog, her address was posted online, she was called every expletive under the sun by someone who Fischer acknowledges in his book and counts as a friend. The excuse that people on a moderated blog are free to say and act how they want doesn't wash.
Do I have a larger axe to grind with this person? Yes, absolutely James. I'm one of the people mentioned. Fischer was given a free pass by me personally all the while the case was going on and all the while it was about Meredith Kercher and her family. That free pass has now ended for Fischer.
When there are people like you who make excuses for people like Fischer, then people like Fischer will carry on. When people like you try and silence opposing arguments by banning them from discussion forums you run, then people like Fischer will carry on. James, heal thyself!
Thanks for your post..
Thank you very much my eminent colleague. As an eminent Professor Emeritus of Truth and Justice I encourage you to continue your research into this case and keep publishing more information as it is discovered.
Dr. Zoo, I hold a simple belief that victims and their families are always off limits to abuse, unfortunately people like Fischer don't agree.
"The Kercher's are not above criticism" was one of his comments.
Perhaps he had a simple upbringing and wasn't taught right from wrong, I don't know and I don't wish to know what makes people like Fischer the way they are. All I do know is that people like him and their practices should always be exposed. People like Fischer only know one language, and that is the language of hate. These people can't be reasoned with and it's completely pointless trying. Haters like Fischer should be met head on. The problem for bullies like him is they tend not to like being fed their own medicine. All the while people like James try and make excuses for simple people like Fischer, simpletons like Fischer see it as a green light to carry on.
Lyn Duncan April 11, 2015 - 7:34 am
I wish to applaud whomever stated that 'the Kerchers are not above criticism'. They are not. It is a total crack up that a disturbed faction of pro guilt peeps insist that EVERYONE needs to feel sorry for a family who never say a word against the hate directed against demonstrably ( and proven) innocent people! Laughable. And soooo not right. You can lead a man to knowledge, but you cannot make him think. But do give it a try! Here >> http://www.amandaknoxcase.com
In the words of Sarah Snyder when talking about Lyn Duncan: "We do not agree with what she does"
Enough said, I think.
These people get by on pure hate. They had the rug pulled out from under them with Knox's acquittal as I reckon they expected it to go to extradition, which could give them opportunity to bash the Kercher family some more. Now they can't, so Lynn still puts the boot into the Kercher family, even though her icon is home free. Lynn is simply a toxic individual, empowered by a infamous killers' crimes. Had she have been in America at the time, she would have been right outside that courtroom for Manson &back in the day very probably with her head shaved an a great big X tattooed or carved on her forehead.
Lyn Duncan April 11, 2015 - 6:12 pm
I applaud anyone who stands up and speaks their mind. Yup, not everyone agree's with me and that is fine. Next!!
Your definition of "speaking your mind" clearly differs to that of the norm. But you must be doing something right if even IIP/IA think you're too much for them. For that I also applaud you old timer.
I also applaud anyone who screen captures people like you "speaking their minds" Next 🙂 xx
Rob Harrison April 11, 2015 - 11:45 am
Actually Prof, "The Kercher's are not above criticism" was from Knox herself – on her spurious blog, which is why the person below is almost orgasmic about it as she full well knows it came from the great one, and wishes to curry favour with her heroine.
Fischer also made a similar comment on his blog. I'll have to look through my memory stick for the exact wording he used, and of course ill edit the above post when I find it. I agree, the disturbed one below is fully aware that Knox made the above comment. Please go easy on her though Rob, it is just starting to sink in with the unwell old lady that the friends who she thought were real were in fact virtual friends who now want nothing to do with her. Back to knitting her own underwear for that one.
He used those exact same words on IIP, so was clearly emulating Knox. This is one of the many many reasons that her followers are considered akin to a cult, with their creepy "Guilter" lexicon, sliming of "unbelievers" and shrill howls that the "Guilters" are "Haters". Fischer was simply spreading The Gospel According to St Amanda, with his parroting of her tasteless and callous comments.
Rob Harrison April 11, 2015 - 1:07 pm
The crazy Knox disciples who deny anyone has ever spewed hatred at the Kercher family seem to forget Fischer himself mocking Merediths bereaved father John Kercher when he told of the white feathers floating down and how he sees them as being sent by Meredith. Fischer responded with a fabricated tale of just running over a duck with his car. If that isn't hateful towards a broken man shattered at the savage murder of his beloved daughter I don't know what is. Fischer is a sick and twisted man.
Rob Harrison April 11, 2015 - 12:26 pm
I wasn't aware Fischer had made a similar comment as I never went to his pathetic (and also spurious) blog after the first time when he'd just set it up with another. However it would come as no surprise as this type of comment is right up his street along with Kelly13 urging the Kercher family to 'set aside their grief' for Meredith and support Amanda Knox. To me comments like this are bizarre in the extreme and serve as a reminder of the very real and hardcore weirdos that Knox and her family have attracted and supported over the years.
The Kercher's are not above criticism; just because they are victims doesn't give them carte blanche to victimize others, nor does it excuse that in their blindness, zeal, or lack of intelligence, at this point, they probably bear some responsibility for failing to find justice for their daughter. They've admitted now(since they'll have little recourse left in Italy) they've perhaps been played for fools, but now it is also too late. Again, largely as they now have little recourse in Italy.
How many sock puppet accounts are you going to hide behind? If you truly believe in everything you say then name yourself Brian (Patrick King). It's just cowardly otherwise.
Man you believe a lot of stuff you have no evidence or cause to; what are you on about? This is the only Disqus screename/handle I post with as well is a notation upon my actual identity.
So, professor – would you please name yourself? Which university do you work for? What academic research have you undertaken? On which academic site can I find your papers? Why is your profile here private? If you were truly a professor, you would give links to your academic area and publications. You dare to accuse others of using fake ID's? Well, at least they are not using fake 'titles'. You have a lower than average IQ and no tertiary education whatsoever. That's a fact. Deal with it.
They have admitted to nothing.Can you quote or cite any source where the Kerchers have 'admitted' to something, whatever it is in your mind?
They lost their daughter when she was savagely murdered in the house she shared with AMANDA KNOX and it seems now it is ok for Americans to murder anybody they want around the world with impunity, just because they are Americans.
This is not going to do Americans any good in the world because people will react against this awful stinking and smug murderous attitude.
Why don't you open a travel agency and sell murder holidays? Leave America, kill your choice of victim and then come back home with full impunity backed by a PR company. The American military have been doing it for years and now the deal is open to civilians it seems.
Now that you got that off your chest, are you able to discuss substance?
The Kerchers' greatest sins have been those omission; that truth and justice being absolutely ravaged before their very eyes, a lynch mob acting on their behalf and in their names, yet their silence acquiescing that the ends justifies the means in getting vengeance for Meredith.
As far as Americans, I don't disagree there are larger issues, but you are perhaps forgetting it is partly because we've had to deal with some of these concerns and failings within our own court system that we more easily recognize them in another, as well of all those who are defendants, I think it more abjectly clear than anything that Italian Raffaele Sollecito is innocent; he has been shadow cast in the whole ordeal yet his case is actually better than Amanda's is, not least of which there's no evidence of any contact he'd ever had with Guede, nor any other than cursory relationship with Kercher, motivation for killing her, breakdown in police interrogation(that's been recorded formally anyway), or anything other than a week long school fling with Knox. "His" shoe prints at the scene which his father, not the police, then proved came from Guede's feet not Raffaele's causing their having to return to the scenes almost 2 months later to "find" evidence on him, makes their witch hunt against him all the more obscene.
As far as your suggestion, that's pretty morbidly humorous…didn't they write a song about already though:
They say murdering it loves company
We could start an agency,
To sell murdering,
Frustrated Incorporated.
Well I know just what you need
I might just have the thing
I know what you'd pay to be
Frustrated Incorporated
I can't take credit though as a Soul Asylum hit..like how hers has found it back in her homeland. Really good tune though you should Google it. That, and I might be ripping from the plot of all those "Hostel" movies with I guess the roles reversed about whom selling murder tourism.
If the Kercher family were not "abuised," does that mean the former defendants are not guilty?
Haven't you been following the case Jackie? The ISC have already said they aren't guilty. Keep up.
Yes, "Professor" – No doubt you had a simple upbringing. That's the only truthful thing you've written! You come from simpletons and you are a simpleton. Only a simpleton would think that others would believe that a simpleton was a 'professor'. Lol!
Lol … My God, you make a bigger fool of yourself with every comment! Your 'eminent' colleague and you are stupid little people, who did very poorly at school. You never made it into a college or university. At the most, you may have studied online via an irrelevant organisation that offers training to anyone who will pay. But I even doubt that! The way you write gives yourself away. You do not look at anything from the point of view of a tertiary educated person, let alone someone with a phd! You are a narcissistic fantasist. You have all this time on your hands, because – far from being an academic – you are non-functional in the real world. Therefore, you give yourself bogus titles and use clique terms that you've heard on TV somewhere. If you had a phd, you would be quoting statistics, and using research. You refer to 'research' in your post above; but neither yourself or the 'professor' understand the first thing about 'research'. For a start, you never refer to ANY 'research', but simply try to fool morons with your use of the word 'research'. Guess what? You don't fool anyone, and even those with little education could work out that you are a fraud.
lol…….The 'Professor' neglects to mention the years and years of filth, lies, hatred etc spewed at his beloved pro guilt sites. All for Meredith apparently. 😉 I would love it if he would grace us with the words from KNOWN longtime innocence and Meredith advocates he deems to be attacking the Kercher family. Hell will freeze in meantime.
Jannie April 11, 2015 - 7:48 am
While there may have been people who have crossed the line I'm sure the professor doesn't share those opinions. Like me, I'm sure he would say "those particular comments are unacceptable and are not views that we share and are sorry for their content".
The difference with the Bruce Fisher example is that it was on his site, where he has complete control of where he left hateful comments towards the Kercher family unmoderated and I believe he even went so far as to say that the Kerchers had left themselves open to criticism, hence justifying the hateful posts.
Oh dear. Fail! Please supply these 'hateful comments'!! And not from banned members ( for doing just that) or anonymous onetime posters, anywhere. Please supply those hateful comments from innocence supporters. Post haste! ( and btw, in case it has escaped your attention, the Italian Supreme Court has ruled both Amanda AND Raffaele ( remember him?) to be totally innocent. They DID NOT COMMIT THE CRIME. 🙂 Please read a translation of their decree as soon as possible. Even the pro guilt hacks should manage that at least. lol
You, of all people, are one of the worst involved in the hatred of a murdered victim of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and her surviving family. And you have proven this yet again with your above comment asking for those comments to be reproduced here! Do your own research and go find them yourself over at Bruce Fischer's cesspool of insanity. And while you're at it, go back to some school of etiquette and seek some kind of help from social services. You're going to need it as you're about to get a pink slip from Amanda Knox Inc. when it goes bankrupt.
You made some of the most despicable comments and attacks on Meredith Kercher and her family that I've ever seen. You're quite frankly a psychopath imo. Nobody could have any empathy, to make the obscene comments you made. You truly are a very disturbed and woeful excuse for a human being, a textbook example of how the internet can empower people with deviant psychopathic personalities.
tuesdayprichard April 11, 2015 - 1:20 pm
It's funny how she insists she's never attacked the Kercher family. I first became interested in this case about a year ago and started posting and getting involved online …about 6 months ago, maybe a bit longer. She is the first one I noticed who was over the top and vile.There are countless screenshots of her posts – that she clearly attempted to erase later on. How she continues to deny this… I'm speechless.
She deliberately denies it so people will remind her of her comments. That way she gets empowered by them all over again. One thing I learned about Lynn over the years is that she's consistently loathsome. She's the type who thrives on the suffering of others.
Oh yeah? Says the corps. Where are they? They don't seem to be in her history." Obscene," even— curious I don't see one word of those supposed posts.I just have to take Corps' word for it? Neanche morta.
I could post thousands of disgusting comments made by you, Michael, Supernaut, Mark Saha, Mafiabuster, Alex K, and many others. But why should I bother? You know I have all the screen shots, I know I have them all, that's good enough for me.Incase you hadn't noticed, the Italian Supreme Court have ruled the Seattle resident you supported, and the other one who's name I forget from Italy, who you didn't support, didn't commit the crime, so why are you still so obsessed?
You spent the time replying, so lets talk about you Lyn? The case, as mentioned, is over, but I understand you're lonely again now, as you were 4yrs ago before you started. So treat this as the Professor doing Lyn a favour 🙂
Your big problem now is you have no life; this case & posting 24/7 for the past 4yrs is all you had. Your only friends were virtual friends on twitter & the Fischer owned blog and most have them have moved on without so much as a goodbye. I feel for you you Lyn, I really do.
In the latter years of your life, you must be well into your 60's now, right?Looking at photos of you, you're not exactly the picture of health. All you had was pottering about the garden and sorting through boiled sweets for company. The only time you did get online to talk about cooking and eating, a passion of yours, you found yourself banned from an old peoples forum for, wait for it, abusing fellow old aged pensioners. Then came along this case- Lyn felt alive again. You had been to Italy as a middle-aged woman in the 1930s & been let down terribly by an Italian man. This was your big chance to get your own back on those horrible Italian men and women who used to mock and laugh at you for walking to the shops in ripped tights and a dressing gown, a kind of walk of shame if you will. You just needed to find a forum where you wouldn't be banned as you were on the old timer cookery forum. Up popped the Injustice Anywhere blog, your eyes lit up, finally for the first time in many years people who were like you were all gathered in one place (thankfully not many of you). Supernaut, Mafiabuster, MichaelB, Fischer, Alex K, The hairdresser, Anderson, Scott etc. For the first time ever you wouldn't be expected to conduct yourself like most of the human race. In fact you were encouraged on that forum to let your true colours show, and that is exactly what we saw with your abuse and harassment of Meredith's family. I don't blame you personally Lyn, I blame people like Fischer who allowed you a voice. You are obviously unwell and he used you, and others like you. I feel sorry for you Lyn, honestly.
Moving on 4yrs to the verdict. What now? You can't go back to the cookery forum and the only other forum I can think of that would allow posters like you is stormfront. Sure, you can keep copying in Amanda on twitter with photos of cats or even your boiled sweet collection. I don't know her, and don't wish to know her, but I do know she isn't interested in an elderly woman from New Zealand who stalks her on twitter. Don't get me wrong Lyn, it's funny for people like me to look at, in fact when i'm bored I sometimes visit your twitter feed for a laugh. No, I'm not mocking you like those Italians did when you were there in the 1930s, you're more like one of those embarrassing old people at weddings. We're now a week & a bit on from the verdict and already people are asking — Amanda & Raffaele who?
In the words of Sarah Snyder "We don't agree with what she does"…Shame on Sarah for saying that, Lyn. You gave up the best part of 4yrs of your boring life for IA and that's the thanks you get.
Thanks for amusing me Lyn and you're welcome 🙂 xx
lol….sigh……you have no idea. This rant says it all. Sweetie, sticks and stones stuff has never affected me, worried me, stopped me. Amanda and Raffaele are innocent and you really need to suck it up. Do it for Meredith. My name is Lyn Duncan. What is yours? 🙂
Nor me Granny – hence the part where I thanked you for being a source of amusement. Amanda and Raffaele who? You need to get over them princess, it's creepy.
My name is Craig Norris, ill be here all week 😉 xx
Oh, your name is Craig Norris and you'll be here a week? Right. But you've been commenting on this case for a very long time. So, when Craig goes, no doubt you'll set up as someone else. Try dropping the 'professor' next time. You are making a complete fool of yourself!
You do realize you just heaped abuse on someone. Did you not find fault with others who have done the same?
lol…I love that he has done it. Speaks for itself huh?
Your comments do speak for themselves, yes Lyn. It is why you'll find posters who have favourited your comment doing a quick u-turn below. Jackie and Joe being just 2.
The comment by Corpus Vile below is actually correct. You are not on either side of this debate, are you 'Professor"? You just happen to have a narcissistic personality disorder. You don't really care about justice for Meredith or for Amanda, and least of all for the families of either. You just enjoy demeaning others, because you know that your life is meaningless. Shame on you. Why don't you get yourself a good shrink and face your obvious demons?
Abuse Jackie? Could you point out the abuse in my factually correct comments?
Lyn Duncan is a disgusting old woman who thinks nothing of contacting Meredith's family to "speak her mind" – Fact.
Members of the forum she posts to also find her behaviour disgusting. Sarah Snyder being one of them – Fact.
Lyn Duncan lived in Italy and was mocked and laughed at by locals. She told us all on an Injustice Anywhere post, are you suggesting she is lying? – Fact
Lyn Duncan was banned from a cookery forum for hurling insults at an elderly moderator. She tells us so herself on Amazon – Fact.
Lyn Duncan has no friends or life away from twitter. She is going through withdrawal symptoms now she has nothing to take up her lonely days – Fact.
Which parts aren't you happy with Jackie? Don't blame me for not being able to handle the truth, that's something you have to overcome yourself…
The Professor, with love xx
I'll leave it to readers to form their own judgments about your contention you were not abusive.
Good idea Jackie…Looking at the number of faves you & I both received it would appear readers agree with me. You lose again I'm afraid Jackie. It's becoming quite a habit of yours.
Who wouldn't be persuaded by your silver keyboard?
Not many. Screen shots tend to have that effect on people.
Yep. I agree jackbutler. Definitely abuse from Prof Jonny.
I'll third that: abuse coming from professorJonny, all right.
Well "Professor" – If you know that this person was posting 24/7 for the past 4 years, then you have put an awful lot of 'research' in, haven't you? Actually, the only reason you know about this person's number of posts, is because you've been doing exactly the same! You have been posting for the same amount of time and with the same obsession! You don't 'feel' for Lynn. You're a self centred narcissist, who gives himself fake titles and mimics what he 'thinks' is intelligent language.
Guess what?? One actually cannot mimic intelligent language in any kind of believable manner, unless one has some kind of tertiary education. Your use of language is sloppy, inaccurate, misuses basic grammar that most nine year olds would understand.
You have endless time on your hands to comment about this case, because you have nothing to do in the real world. The real world is harsh, isn't "Professor"? In the real world, one must actually possess substance and real qualifications in order to use the title of 'professor'? One must know how to relate to other human beings in an authentic way in order to hold down a job. One must be clear about who they are and where they fall in the scheme of things, in order to sustain friendships. In the real world, one cannot simply belittle others and tell lies about themselves, because someone will find out the truth.
Whoever you are, you are a sad, lonely little liar. Do you dream about your life as a 'professor'? Is that what you wanted to be? Did you find it hard to face the fact that your DNA is that of a line of simpletons, and that you did not have the necessary intelligence to be anyone significant? Does all of your sick pain justify your nasty condemnation of others? I find it impossible to believe that an academic phd would resort to such personal attacks. Do they make you feel superior? Why aren't you spending time on your area of research? Oh, I know – You must be 'retired'. That's the excuse for all the "professors" and "experts" that abound on this case! When asked why they have the time take out of their academic research, or area of expertise, they say they are 'retired'. Guess what? Retired academics don't hang around on websites demeaning others in nasty tones. They tend to give back something of worth to society, and they maintain interest in things that really matter.
It's fine to have a fantasy, but you are a nasty little snake, and that is not fine.
Jannie,
I have many screen shots of me personally calling out people who made disgusting posts to Knox and her family. I have screen shots of me saying the same to Fischer.
I can guarantee you one thing. Not 1 screen shot exists of the fans of Knox doing the same thing in return. It is because they are a cult who are easily led and afraid to do the right thing. Cult members are chosen for a reason, simple folk who take orders and do not question what their leaders say. That pretty much sums up the cult of St Amanda. Duncan was an easy target for these people. I feel sorry for her.
I may write a paper about the cult. If I do, Duncan will be my test subject.
You may not be able to censor those with whom you share an opinion for excesses. But you would criticize them, would you not? That is, if you disagree with them. I have seen some abusive comments on this forum from people making abusive attacks. You are in a position to say so.
This forum has degenerated to a debate about people saying nasty things. Ought it not be a debate about the exoneration of the accused? Or are ad hominems more fun?
Yes, hence my sentence saying we don't agree with those comments and apologising for their content. Something similar from Bruce Fisher would have sufficed I'm sure.
Are you suggesting those who have directed disgusting comments towards Meredith's family, and in some cases Meredith herself in the past, should just be given a free pass now, Jackie?
Tell me why you think the comments that people like Lyn Duncan, Karen Pruett, Fischer, Bremner, Moore et al should just be forgotten about?
The sort of attacks — which makes you "disgusted" — is of the precise nature of the attacks from your allies directed against members of families of the exonerated defendants.
Why not address the disgusting comments from your friends & fellow fan club members before trying to deflect Jackie? You must realise by now I won't let this go, right?
I have never been disgusted by what posters on forums say.
Of course you haven't, hence the need to try and change the subject or focus whenever I bring them up.
I can't grace you with any comments from "KNOWN longtime innocence and Meredith advocates" there aren't any. What I can do is post a few comments, for now, of well known Kercher family haters and members of the Bruce Fischer owned Injustice Anywhere blog.
Mark Saha/Carlofab – Injustice Anywhere blog, May 2013:
"The Kercher's have prostituted the memory of their daughter for financial gain"
Sarah Snyder – Injustice Anywhere blog:
"Meredith Kercher and her family have gotten all the justice they are going to get"
Supernaut – Injustice Anywhere blog:
"I want to make it absolutely clear, I despise the Kercher's"
"The Kercher's are money-grubbing thugs"
"The Kercher's are just over a year away from seeing their dream of looting the Sollecito estate"
Mafiabuster – Injustice Anywhere blog:
"The Kercher's and prosecutors continue to persecute her [Knox] because she is everything they are not"
"What a vile family they [The Kercher's] are"
Stegosaur – Injustice Anywhere blog:
"What about the Kercher's? I've rarely seen such a dead-pan bunch of people. Not a flickr of sadness, anger or emotion from them at anytime"
Karen Pruett – Injustice Anywhere blog:
"I hate to think that they [Kercher family] are in this for the money and not justice for Meredith, but it looks more and more that is the case"
"As it was with the Nazi's [sic], as it is with ISIS. They [The Kercher family] are superb propagandists and have an incredibly effective PR Machine, we have watched them in action, blatant action, for years. The Kercher PR Machine in all it's bloody glory"
Nigel Scott – Injustice Anywhere blog:
"As for the Kercher's (so called 'dignified' silence aside)"
Alex K – Injustice Anywhere (for core members only section) blog:
"The Kercher's belong in the enemy camp, but why has not the maxim "know thy enemy" been applied to them? What DO we really know about them? I cannot imagine they have no weak spots, no skeletons that cannot be exploited to make them drop their case.
Alex K – Amanda Knox owned & moderated blog:
"It's the Kercher's who owe you an apology, especially the dirty old man"
Lyn Duncan – Injustice Anywhere blog & twitter:
"I have an ugly side. I like 'by whatever means'.
"We have to quit having Meredith protected when she cannot be helped"
"I wanna talk about the jizz Guede left between Meredith's legs"
"@LyleKercher: Your mother knows the truth Lyle"
"And seems @lylekercher stopped overturning stones 4 Mez long ago"
The brother of Friends of Amanda Knox spokeswoman, Anne Bremner. Doug Bremner to Lyn Duncan – twitter:
"Did anyone wonder why John Kercher Jr was the only member of the family not present in Italy at the verdict"
Lyn Duncan reply:
"at ANY of the verdicts #coward A family should show united strength but eldest son/#merediths big brother…nothing"
There are just a small fraction of comments by you & others, Lyn. When I have had a chance to compile everything and centralise it all in one place, I will of course let you know 🙂
You're welcome xx
Some of those comments are from people I have never heard of, some from people who were banned for making certain comments and I stand by every single one of mine. Next!! 😉
You have at one point or another replied to everyone of the posters mentioned above. There isn't one person on that list who you "have never heard of"…Now, I can allow you a little grace for old age and being senile, but I won't give you a pass with lying.
We all know that you're proud of the abuse & harassment you have thrown at Meredith Kercher's family– you did it all for Knox, and Knox knew you were doing it. Has anyone ever suggested anywhere that you aren't proud of being mentally unwell?
You're welcome 😉 xx
Lyn Duncan April 11, 2015 - 10:30 pm
You are welcome too! 🙂 Amanda and Raffaele are innocent and the fat lady sang loud and clear. Get over it 'Professor'.
I'll have to ask again it seems; Amanda and Raffaele who? I'm not obsessed with them, never have been. I am however obsessed with exposing their respective fan clubs, in particular people like you and your Irish BFF Michael. Hey, no need to thank me old timer, it's a pleasure 😉 I haven't heard you singing yet tubs.
You're very welcome btw. The Professor with love xx
Lyn Duncan April 12, 2015 - 12:02 am
I forgot about that blog….thanks for the reminder as it needs tweeting again. Sadly, I had nothing to do with it but I admire that someone made sure you are all seen in a true light. Of course your light shines here, admirably as far as your fellow hatemongers are concerned. And for Mez apparently. Poor girl will be turning in her grave at your attempts at 'Justice for Meredith'. But I imagine you are suitably proud. Good for you!! 😉
Justice for Meredith? Any hope of "Justice for Meredith" ended on the 01st November 2007.
No Tubs, my efforts here and elsewhere aren't for Mez, all my efforts are for you and and the other core number of mentally ill fans of the woman from Seattle who's name is already a distant memory. I am hoping that I can shine a light on why it is important that first cousins are prevented from marrying and having children. Thankfully, I was successful in your case, but others have slipped through the net. Not many of you mind, which of course makes my job easier. Now, which photo would you prefer I use of you?
I'm not going to ask you sign my new petition, but could you be a voice for the cause? "Professors against first cousins from Injustice Anywhere having kids" or PRICK for short..
You're most welcome. We're here for you xx
Oh God, writing in red is an even bigger error. Professor – Any legitimate tertiary institution would have taught you that words and opinions do not gain power or influence by the use of bold typeface, or the use of red typeface. This just makes you look desperate. You are desperate. You have week, bogus arguments because all you really want is attention. Hence, you use bold typeface and red typeface, which are true signs of your actual level of ignorance.
"The fat lady sings…"" just reminded me of some pics around of a certain old kiwi foul mouth.
Well, the first thing one learns when writing academic papers is to never, ever use a bold face type to make a point. You are an ignorant, uneducated moron. The next time you give yourself an IQ test, try a real one. "Real" means one that has been developed through viable, empirical , scientific means that have passed rigorous standards set throughout the academic world. The 'online' ones are mostly trying to sell you something. Go to the mensa website, and take their test. I dare you! Then, you might find out why you look so stupid when you give yourself the title of 'professor'!
Is it your contention that only supporters of the exonerated defendants make comments of that caliber?
Perhaps address the comments and what you think of them Jackie, rather than trying to shift blame. Thats just cowardly, isn't it Jackie.
Would you point out where I said what you said I said?
Sure, just as soon as you point out where I believe 2 previously accused people were killers?
For a guy who claims to be neutral, you do focus your withering criticism on just one side. Is the other side without sin and have yet to caste the first stone?
The last time I checked the side you represent wasn't representing an innocent murdered girl.
I represent myself.
For a guy who claims to be neutral, you do focus your withering criticism on just one side. See how that works Jackie.
By representing myself, did you think I was claiming to be neutral?
No, hence my first comment which I invite you to read again.
Well, for the Professor I have to say no one's hating on Meredith in any of this…well besides that she was a known Jezebel sl*t, junkie wh*re, criminal "errand girl" of her drug dealing loser boyfriend, lying, vampiric, stanky mess of a semen soaked smelly mattress jockey who deserved everything she got.
Oh wait sorry, Meredith died and Amanda lived…whoops, sounds like I said all this stuff about the wrong wide-eyed college kid. K, my bad. Why does it sound so familiar though? Hope cruel irony's not lost on ya guilters!
I have no time or patience for Kercher haters, Brian, I thought i'd made that more than clear in my previous posts. Adjust your tone and you may address me.
Why do you use such appalling grammar and syntax, Professor?
JLS1950 April 11, 2015 - 7:53 pm
The Kercher family have been long misled and manipulated by their Italian "counsel" Maresca. I really doubt that they were directly influenced by dreams of recovering money in the case – there was never any money to recover – but I have long suspected that their contract with Maresca put them into a legal and financial bind. I hope they are released from that now and that they can begin to think for themselves. It is too bad they were inveigled into this "relationship" while in the depths of heartache and grief, but Maresca clearly never represented the true interests of the Kercher family but rather is only a tool of Mignini.
Given what you say about Fisher, et al, does that means the former defendants are guilty? Or is this just a diversion?
Why are you trying to divert from the comments made by supporters of Knox? Comment on what you think about the few samples I gave and ill happily discuss a case which is now closed…
Yep, people on both sides attack each other aggressively. Forums, like this, ain't as gentile as the Tea Parties those Tory-worshipers in the North like to put on. Or is it your contention your side is pristine?
I don't have a side Jackie – I told you over a year ago on Amazon I have no interest in whether or not the 2 previously accused who's names I forget go back to prison or not.
I know it causes you a few problems having someone here who is only interested in how "your side" conduct themselves. You make that a little too obvious with how quickly you try to change the subject.
The other side — how would you characterize their contributions? Have you set up a file on abusive comments from the other side?
Of course I have Jackie, why would you think I hadn't. I have many comments from apparent supporters of Meredith that are equally as disgusting. They don't go into the many thousands like those from your side, but nonetheless they exist.
Do you have files on them as well?
I have files on all of you Jackie, pro & against. It's how I roll..
You wouldn't know how to keep a 'file'. You are a fantasist, a dunce who came bottom of the class and still can't deal with it!
You are not a 'professor'! You are a joke. Why do you and Dr. "Zoo" think people are stupid enough to believe the bogus titles that you give yourself? You don't argue this matter as a professor would, and in fact, calling yourself a 'professor' just makes you look like a dunce. You and "Zoo" are people who came bottom of the class at school. You therefore resent the education system. You have no influence over anyone in the real world, and no position whatsoever in academia. It's totally obvious. You have all this time on your hands, which you devote to big noting yourselves (you and "Zoo"), from behind your computer screens where you live as nothing other than a couple of fantasists!
I have read the denigration…who you trying to fool?
He's not a "Dr". He's a moron. It's obvious that Dr. Joseph Zoo has a rudimentary education at best; he has no tertiary qualifications, let alone a phd.
If everything you say about Fischer is true, does that mean the accused killed the victim?
No, it means that everything he said about Fischer is true. Keep up Jackie.
You agree that the comment is off topic?
No, I think that whenever Meredith's murder is discussed everyone should be reminded of Fischer & his blog.
Whatever Bruce Fischer is or is not, at least he is prepared to use his own name. You, on the other hand, have no idea of how foolish you appear with your ludicrous claim to have a phd. Why is your use of language so basic and often inaccurate if you are an academic? Why do you use emotive, personally degrading comments, as opposed to logical, factual statements? Why are you unable (in all your rantings about Amanda Knox on the net) to ever point to any academic research that might back up your theories? You are an ill-educated redneck who is pretending to be something he/she is not. I have read a lot of Bruce Fischer's comments and there is no hint of him "trying to erase the memory of Meredith Kerccher … " That very comment, written by you, is evidence of your poor level of education. It is not the observation of an intelligent or educated human being. You are doing the Kerchers a huge disservice by using their tragedy for your own narcissistic fantasies about 'who' you would like others to believe you are.
With the final verdict, Amanda Knox's conviction for felonious lying was upheld. She did three years in Cappane Prison for that conviction. Amanda Knox is a convicted felon and convicted liar. Who would ever believe a convicted liar? Other liars or those who are employed by her to rebrand her image.
Larry Saltzman April 10, 2015 - 9:19 am
There is a strong factual case for Amanda Knox's innocence. My conviction that she is innocent is based on evidence, not on religious belief. I am sure Amanda is a nice young woman, but I don't know her and I don't worship her. It is very disingenuous to imply that. The reality is that she has been pursued by mobs of internet trolls and the tabloid press screaming her guilt and demanding her punishment based on nothing but the lies of the prosecution. Thankfully, she and co-victim Raffaele Sollecito ( who always is ignored ) have been completely vindicated and the matter is ended. The real killer is in prison, though sadly will get out in the near future. I hope he is a changed man, but I fear that some other Italian woman will be raped and murdered once this dangerous killer is back on the streets.
Mr Salzman, you seem to have observed some bad behaviour on the part of 'guilters' and this has been much publicised. I think we can unite behind the sentiment that this is just plain wrong.
But I am attempting to highlight the OTHER side of the coin, that is, poor behaviour by strident Knox supporters, and an attempt to suppress any opinion other than the received mantra. This is a part of this whole saga which has been largely ignored.
Yes, if you noticed, now that the acquittal has been handed down, most of the Pro-Knox supporters are towing the line that the verdict simply HAS to be accepted now, no questions asked.
It's as if they're trying to stop any discussion whatsoever about the merits of the verdict. This is strange, because you would think if they wanted to demonstrate Knox's innocence, then you'd think being able to justify the verdict with logical and objective discussion would be the first place to start.
Indeed so, Jannie. The pro innocence advocates should be celebrating their long fought battle. I think they mostly are, but there are a few undignified people who are not content with their victory, no, the Kerchers along with the "guilters" have to be forced into a straitjacket of submission.
In addition, they feel they have every right, on this site which hosts respectful comments, to malign me personally. But this just proves the point of my article.
There's some till commenting here by which ultimately still represents a threat to Knox/Sollecito even though they have been now legally declared innocent; so that means the fight must continue. Further, much of it is to exonerate them in the public eye or otherwise restore what has been taken from them, so in this regard it must go on as well. Problem is I don't hold out much hope in that regard till one of the principle actors reveals something, ex: Rudy tells truth, Kerchers acknowledge innocence, cop tells of some fishy goings-on, etc.
Ohio Brian, I agree with you that if the ex defendants are innocent, then it would be a fine thing if they were truly exonerated by someone who knows what happened, step by step, that night or in the subsequent days.
If a person is innocent, it must be truly terrible to have that cloud over his/her head for life.
So how is this exoneration to occur? Rudy Guede knows for sure what happened, but is he going to tell? If he is the lone killer certainly not. A bent cop? Well in over 7 years we have had no whistle blower; nobody broke ranks and pointed to malfeasance.
It's possible, but less likely I think that Rudy will tell now; even if he has had a change of heart, with these two being declared innocent all these years later, it would only go to placing likely horrific scorn upon himself. I think however it may still be possible if pressure were to be applied such that he "seek forgiveness" by admitting the truth, a direct appeal to the public but which also might serve him as then could throw his own trial into the wringer, i.e. his confession along lines of "injustice was done because I killed Meredith alone, but here's all the ways the cops corrupting, and I was made to sign on to a pack of lies on their behalf." For him at this point it also might be beneficial as he's already eligible for release but people there aren't going to be very accepting of since often we need from condemned that they accept their verdict and confess their guilt in the end.
As for a cop to turn, this might be more likely now in some ways as microscope may revert back on the Perugians for a lot more answers(it may come down to sacrificing them vs. the court system for example); whatever side one takes in this case, it's clear on some levels its been FUBAR'd by these guys. And for the likelihood, keep in mind it was only just very recently one of the jurors turned and came out against (at great personal risk to herself I might ad as were the case to not have gone as it did, and even still she could face charges from):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3002451/Juror-helped-convict-Amanda-Knox-grave-doubts-American-s-involvement-Meredith-Kercher-s-murder.html
I myself was celebrating some before the Court's verdict came in (and I wonder now how much Ms. Ballerini coming out might've rendered in their decision(or might still for full formal) as to me I felt and posted a lot based upon the following simple breakdown of her bombshell:
THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!
"Atmosphere of Guilt" Before Trial Began => IMPARTIAL/BIASED JURY
"Grave Doubts" >> Reasonable Doubt => INNOCENT AS NOT PROVEN GUILTY
Case = "Nonsense" => INNOCENT ALL TOGETHER
P(Guilt) = f(Sentence Length) => MISTRIAL
GAME OVER!
Finally! 8 long years later!
At best I thought that because of her, the case could not be finalized for guilt without making the court system then look absolutely ridiculous…though maybe its already too late for this.
The problem with a cop "breaking ranks" though is that unlike this juror it is exceedingly rare for one to do so in most any case, here or nearly any other, primarily as it goes against what they've worked for and believed in most of their lives, as well then puts at potential risk all cases that've been processed through the police department as well may ruin people who's lives they care about, bring on total indemnity upon themselves, not least of which many might not have direct proof of anything either other than just the general atmosphere. It's ironic that the "code of silence" or "thickness of thieves" is often seen more among the boys in blue than even the mafia!
Technically that is the case when the highest court has finalized it. Or at least in Italy anyway.
As far as the full reasoning behind, this hasn't come out yet so a bit premature to debate either side yet on what isn't fully known regarding the high courts entire motivations. Not that people can't debate whether they think a right or wrong decision, though if no more legal avenues available to them, then they pretty much are obligated to at least acknowledge the reality; you can't say stuff like OJ needs to constantly look over his shoulder as on a certain level this is both an injustice as well could be considered a threat to level extrajudicial harm.
Really? I wonder why an innocent would accuse another (3 times), or put herself at the murder, or return to the house several times before the police showed, or lie about her blood evidence in cottage.. or carry a mop around..lol. Sollecitos people said it was Amanda….
In an interview with La Repubblica at the prison in Viterbo, Guede said:
"If Knox and Sollecito are innocent, then so am I."
Guede described himself as an "impossible convict" and the "accomplice of a crime without a culprit".
"I want to arrive at a situation where my case will be reviewed," he told La Repubblica.
"I am convinced we will find new elements to swing the verdict."
New evidence in his new trial will force the SC First Section to reopen the case at any time. This has happened before as seen in the high-profile "jeans are too tight" rape case:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/16/world/ruling-on-tight-jeans-and-rape-sets-off-anger-in-italy.html
If and when that does happen, Amanda Knox may escape extradition, but a murder conviction would be devastating. She is already a convicted felon who put an innocent man in prison for her murder of Meredith Kercher and this makes her permanently unemployable in any gainful full-time position. Her next court date for police slander and slander of the entire nation of Italy is scheduled for June 9th. She will be convicted and this too will be world wide news and added to her criminal record. She won't be imprisoned for this conviction but she will be heavily fined.
Blah, blah, blah. What utter rubbish you have scribbled. How do you place an iota of value on anything that lying, murdering piece of rubbish, Rudy might say. If Rudy said the sun will rise in the West tomorrow would you believe him?
This disgrace of a "person", evil as he is, has no credibility and the nonsense that springs from his mouth is of no consequence but to the feeble minded.
Danielle Simone April 10, 2015 - 11:46 am
In reply to Bruce Fischer's remark about the redundancy of articles like mine, I would say this: the fact that a fairly mild article elicited such heated responses attests to the fact that this is a case which will live on, and just will not die until a definitive truth, behind which we can all unite, is found. I haven't found that truth yet.
#amandaknox touches her throat with her dominant right hand and says "Meredith was my friend"http://www.bodylanguagesuccess.com/2015/03/nonverbal-communication-analysis-no_9.html
That's because she has empathy for her murdered friend. She has an empathic personality, Joe, but that's not something you could possibly understand.
Here is another excellent analysis of AK's recent TV statements:
http://www.eyesforlies.com/blog/2015/03/amanda-knox-speaks-out-2/
Revealing.
It is only "excellent" because it echoes your theory. It could equally be a crock…
The science supporting knowing-everything-by-looking-at-someone isn't there. But they do have their "science." A-journals and peer reviews? Nope.
phad, what makes you think Dr David Zoo doesn't have empathy?
And on what grounds do you make the assessment that Amanda has an empathetic personality? Because of her airbrushed image and carefully orchestrated responses designed to view her in a favourable light?
"Designed to view her in favourable light." You take the cake, congratulations, except you first have to admit pictures were first shown of her in an unfavorable light. The only way to right that wrong was to do exactly what you would have done if you were falsly accused of murder and dragged through the mud as the innocent person that you are: you change the image presented to the public to arrive at the fact you're innocent.
Amanda cried when she was first assaulted with horrible images in court of Meredith's murder. The pro-guilt faction would have you wish that fact away. A person without a conscience wouldn't cry like that; a person without empathy wouldn't either.
She has been seen giving a homeless person a sandwhich to eat. That takes empathy. She was seen by chance: it wasn't done for the camera, an empathic person doesn't do it for the camera, she does it because she was genuinely moved to.
I think I would restrict myself to speaking about the case if I were you. Giving a homeless person a sandwich is not a valid determinant of innocence or guilt.
I wasn't trying to prove her innocence to you; you asked me about evidence of her empathy and I answered what I thought showed empathy. Would you like to know evidence of her empathy only around the case and for me to try to prove her innocence to you?
How would you know how Amanda Knox feels? Oh wait….
Well, I'd love to say in response "I am she" but I don't want to insuit Amanda nor feed your delusions.
No I think empathy proves nothing either way. It was another poster who originally raised the question of empathy. I find myself playing Devil's advocate with the pro innocence supporters, and I admit I do lean towards guilt rather than innocence.
I think in the US you have been fed a sanitised and airbrushed view of Amanda, whereas my commuting between London and Rome ( and speaking Italian) has furnished me with a more balanced view.
Yes, well my living in Umbria during the entire ordeal has also enabled me to have a more balanced view. I was exposed to almost none of the media from the states at the beginning: I only had the one sided view of the very controled press in Italy,( also being fluent in Italian.) Being bombarded with images of the supposed she-devil, I later discovered the US perspective refreshing. However, I wasn't bomarded with her image because I almost never saw any images of her coming from the American perspective; I was instead busy reading what documents I could get ahold of, taking time to understand the Italian which to my delight, is easier than American legal language once you understand the complicated grammar. I had the added God send that my computer didn't support videos!
I don't blame you for thinking she was guilty. I thought so too, the first year of being bombared with what I assumed to be true and because I assumed it was true, I didn't pay close attention. Things did strike me as strange about the assumption of guilt, however. Jealousy of beauty was being tauted as a motive. That was not convincing. Attention from boys(MK obviously): Amanda had a loving and affectionate boyfriend. Orgie. I assumed this came from at least two of the suspects and I was perplexed when I heard by chance it didn't. "Confession" plastered all over Italy: CAse Closed, of course.Then, Guede suddenly appears from nowhere and only his dna all over the murder scene (of the bedroom), but 47 days later, tada, Raff's dna is finally found, Phew! HE's GUILTY. Why wasn't Amanda's dna found in a struggle of life and Death?
So, I started trying to read original court documents because I wanted to be sure they were guilty. I couldn't believe the Massei report. It seemed like someone trying to convince himself of guilt, too. Pages and pages of making hypothetical assumptions. Needless to say, i didn't find that very convincing..
The investigation was conducted based on behavioral analyses of two foreigners. in my reading, I discovered you don't do that with people from different cultures when investigating a murder because the results are inevitably wrong. How can you trust the results of anything that starts out literally on the wrong foot?
You mean Joe Zoo? Can a con man have empathy?
You didn't answer Danielle's questions. Why do you always do that when challenged?
"Can a con man have empathy?" Answers her question perfectly. If she thinks a con can, then you're golden,Dr.DAVE ZOO, but if she thinks a con can't, sarai scaricato e ti dico "ciao"AW.
I always answer when challenged. However, if I don't feel challenged, I don't answer.
What makes you think that I don't have empathy?
I don't believe cons have empathy. But, being that I ignore most of your posts because I have found too many repugnant and cruel, I may be wrong and you may have shown empathy. But, I DOUBT IT.
Nice article, very even and fair to both sides.
It's fairly endemic that if you simply question the verdict and the reasoning behind the acquittal that you'll be seen as a "guilter".
Thankyou very much Jenny. What I perceived as a mild article has been misrepresented beyond belief. It seems that if we fail to 'believe' or ask questions, then we are completely unethical, or as a Twitter user phrased it, "a piece of shit under my shoe."
This is a translation of the latest Italian Supreme Court ruling regarding the acquittals of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. " PURSUANT TO C.P.P. ARTICLE 620 LETTER A); ANNULS THE RULING UNDER APPEAL WITH RESPECT TO THE CRIME UNDER CHARGE B) OF THE RUBRIC BECAUSE THE CRIME IS EXTINCT BY PRESCRIPTION; PURSUANT TO C.P.P. ARTICLES 620 LETTER L) AND 530, PARAGRAPH II; EXCLUDING THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE UNDER C.P. ARTICLE 61 N.2 IN RELATION TO THE CRIME OF CALUMNY, ANNULS THE RULING UNDER APPEAL WITHOUT REMAND WITH RESPECT TO THE CRIMES UNDER CHARGES A), D), AND E) OF THE RUBRIC BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS DID NOT COMMIT THE ACT; RECALCULATES THE SENTENCE IMPOSED UPON PETITIONER AMANDA MARIE KNOX FOR THE CRIME OF CALUMNY AS THREE YEARS OF CONFINEMENT." ………………..Note!!!!! THE WORDS " DID NOT COMMIT THE ACT!!"
Lyn Duncan, there is a paradox here in the reasoning of the judges, which I think may become a major headache for them. Yes, the ex defendants' 'guilty' status has been annulled, but the calumny charge stands. This means that the judges are accepting the confession as real and not coerced. I shall be writing a new short article about this.
Danielle. The real fact is, you are a pro guilt wannabe journo who wants to join the continued persecution of two demonstrably and proven innocent people. The fact you are having your sad piece printed at this obscure site says it all. Look forward to your next venture into lalaland re the calunnia conviction but you may want to consider holding off until the ECHR have decided what to do with it first. My bet? ( and pssstt…I have stated for months the ISC would likely annul the convictions…TICK!) is that the ECHR will tell Italy to can it, ditch it, throw it out. But then again, you could then have another reason to gather some clicks on your way to proving your worth as a 'real' journalist. Maybe the same calibre as Vogt? Something to strive for. 😉 Oh. I forgot. Another you appear to be emulating. The convicted felon Chelsea Hoffman. Would love to see your CV in 2 years time.
The ECHR cannot overturn member states' court decisions. You need to go out and get a real job. Your work here has been completed and your services are no longer required. Good luck!
Lyn Duncan, I have tried to reply to everyone who has asked me a respectful question. This is why I gave you a response re the judges' reasoning.
But when you start to insult me as a PERSON, and belittle my articles in an offensive manner, then you have crossed a line.
But your posts have been invaluable because you have completely validated my points about over zealous supporters. I will respond to any genuine questions, but will not engage in mudslinging. Goodbye.
Yep, Lynn really is a "give an idiot enough rope" kinda gal, isn't she? 😀
Indeed so, and anything of this nature directed at me will be met with silence.
Ak's rights both as a witness and as a suspect were not legally observed. I'm surprised her confession would be accepted now when as far as I understood, Massei recognized it as an unlawfully solicited confession.
Phad, if you are backing the ISC's decision to acquit, then surely you must agree to their upholding of the calunnia conviction. It's the same judges, remember? You are right about the confession re the Massei trial, ( it's a while since I read it) but the spontaneous statement was admissible as evidence. Thankyou for reminding me! ( not meant sarcastically!)
Actually perhaps it's a faux pas but I don't agree to their upholding of the calumny conviction. I believe her confession was coerced in either case; as a witness, it was illegally written down and as a suspect, she didn't have a lawyer present. If it's based on her email home, this was not meant for the police: her audience were her loved ones and to them she admitted she was confused and therefore wasn't a reliable witness because what she told the police seemed like dreams and not her actual memory of the actual night in question.
No, none of that is true at all. While in a jail cell, AK hand wrote her 'memoriale' and insisted that it be given to Mignini. This is the main reason why she was convicted of callunia. She is forevermore a convicted felon who owes Patrick Lumumba and his family the court awards that she was ordered to pay. Why do you believe a convicted felonious liar? Please answer my question or don't bother responding. Thank you.
She did state to the police she didn't think she could be a reliable witness in her own written statement, that she stood by what she said, but that what she said seemed like dreams and didn't match with her memory of her actually staying at Raff's that night.
However, this was all a result of her original, coerced confession that she felt she had to let them know, therefore, it's is still related to that. Because it is still an extension of her coerced confession, I feel it should be annulled and thrown out, but once it's thrown out, that Amanda then should take the responsibility for her part in Patrick's name being smeared and pay him what she was asked to pay originally as the proper gesture and as a symbol of trying to make peace.
It was a spontaneous statement, possibly but not definitely because AK wished to backtrack from her previous confession.
Not recording the confession was of course lamentable, to say the least, but you have to consider the possibility that Knox could exploit this for her own ends, and indeed the coerced interrogation ( refuted by her lawyer during the Massei trial) did not appear in its full glory until after the acquittal in 2011, when truth was not so important.
WTBH peddled this story, and 'expert' books like "The Forgotten Killer"shaped and reinforced public perception, especially in the US.
Ok, that's true about being able to use it for her own ends, theoretically speaking, That is also true for the police if we're to be truthful. One has to be circumspect about the fact AK and RS were recorded and watched for their every move from day one and yet the police didn't record the interrogation. It was also an omission admitted to be unusual to have nonetheless happened in the three interrogations of the three suspects. Not having an accurate objective record of those interrogations is precisely why the case is still being hotly argued today.
The responsibility of what happens in the four walls of a legal institution lies on the shoulders of the police. We shouldn't have to be forced to simply"believe" one or the other, and yet here we are.
jack April 11, 2015 - 9:27 am
This is the logic being touted by Corpus. That if one accepts the decision to acquit, one must agree with the calumny or other findings by the same court.
And why exactly? The FOA have consistently stated that Amanda Knox is innocent. Period. Just because the ISC gives some kind of mixed verdict or a verdict that contradicts earlier verdicts or a verdict that has inconsistencies in it, why would anyone supporting Amanda have to agree or align with their reasoning or logic or lack thereof?
The answer is they don't. The ONLY important consequence of the verdict is that it is legally binding. That's it. The reasoning of this Byzantine court really is irrelevant.
You seem to be one of the few not praising the Italian judges at present! But just because FOA think she's innocent doesn't make it so. As you say, there has been an acquittal, so you must be content with that. That the calunnia conviction was upheld does perplex me, because then the judges are confirming belief in the spontaneous statement as evidence.
I cannot know, but I can speculate that in their 10 hour deliberation, there was not complete agreement between the judges, otherwise we would have had the verdict much earlier.
Yes, thank you Danielle. It was a long debate that was, most likely, more about possible ramifications of rendering a guilty verdict. As Marasca recently stated they reached their verdict based on "insufficient evidence". If that is true, then they violated Italian law and this will be reviewed in their upcoming motivations report.
The judges made the right decision. But seeing that so far the Italian system has gone from guilty to acquits, to overturn acquits, to guilty to acquits basically mimicking a coin toss in their consistency, I could care less what "logic" they used to arrive at their decision. I agree that just because the FOA believes in her innocence does not makes it so, I have long stated that the evidence shows it and that any logical and dispassionate thinker could see that.
The fact that they finally arrived at a partially correct decision does not exonerate the Italian system for years of legal abuse of two innocent people that should have never been arrested or taken to trial in what is one of the most ridiculous cases I've personally witnessed.
The previous Cassation court had confirmed her guilt of the calunnia charge. This Cassation court did not address that charge. given the earlier final confirmation.
I think you must need for all those in support of the exoneration to praise the judges who exonerated her. You may find that generalization does not apply broadly.
If you see inconsistency in any Knox supporter — who criticized the judiciary before this decision but praise it now — feel free to point that out. Would that not also apply to those who defended the judiciary but condemn it now?
It certainly would apply. The Italian justice system is in urgent need of reform.
The concept of res judicata or precedent seems lost on Cassazione – but I think that simply shows they are a politically-motivated entity at root.
The upholding of the calunnia conviction appears to be a political bone even as it was in the Hellmann decisions. Once it is eliminated that Knox committed or was involved directly in the murder, then it is also eliminated that she had any special knowledge of who in fact did commit the murder and likewise who did not. Her accusation of Lumumba is therefore just as she stated in her autograph of 6 Nov 2007: something she believed at the time but for which she admits and even strongly avers that she has no basis of knowledge or experience: it is of no more probative value than the statement of Guede that Knox's involvement is a "thought" that he "always had". The two "spontaneous declarations" are known to have been sold to Knox – who could not actually read them – as descriptions of her "imagination" of what she "might have seen" based in 2 hours of insistence by police both that Lumumba was the killer and that Knox was there at the time – and on supposed "hard physical evidence". We know now that no such "hard physical evidence" ever existed or indeed ever could have existed: Lumumba was not there and Knox was not there either – no evidence of her presence was ever presented. Rudy Guede was there and he killed Meredith all by himself for reasons that are still being obscured – apparently deliberately.
One cannot "think" the truth. One either knows it or not. Knox knew that Patrick was not involved and she was convicted for accusing him of being the murderer and did three years in prison for that. Therefore, she is forevermore a convicted felon.
…and precisely HOW did she supposedly "know" this when he had told her not to come in that night and she did not know one solitary thing of where he was? And where is Guede's "calunnia" conviction for his identical act?
"I was there, I heard Meredith scream" – Amanda Knox
…written by Anna Donnino in a language that Knox could not then READ. That was NOT the statement of Knox, who wrote less than 12 hours later that she had no memory of being in the cottage that night AT ALL. You are quoting words put in Knox's "mouth" by police and Mignini.
She was there in the room when the murder happened. RS had no reason to be in Meredith's room, but he was there based on his perfect DNA match. AK says her alibi is that she was with him all night, so she was there. And RG was there, therefore, all three were there and they are all guilty of murder.
How could Knox possibly "know" if she was NOT THERE AT ALL?
Danielle: I'm sure you didn't mean that she confessed to murder. The calumny charge refers to a false account involving Lumumba as the killer. It is the calumny charge that she was found guilty of. But she never confessed to calumny.
Do you mean that she confessed to observing a murder and not reporting it? She was never accused of that.
I certainly concede that there is an apparent gulf between what the first set of cassation judges said and what the second set found. And we'll see what the final verdict report will come up with.
No, I did not mean the murder. I mistakenly wrote "confession" when I really should have said spontaneous statement. Sorry about that. I have been trying to answer every single Q politely put to me.
So I'll clear this up: I was not referring to a murder confession but to the false accusation of Lumumba . However, I still think it leaves the judges with a problem. How could Amanda falsely accuse a man of being at the murder scene when she herself has been cleared of being at the murder scene?
Knox was accused and found guilty of was calunnia, which is telling a lie about Lumumba. If she were innocent, it is telling a lie — not knowing whether or not he was there. If she were guilty, it is still telling a lie, knowing he was not there. Why would the new verdict report have to address that?
Yes you do have a good point here. But I don't feel I can go further with this one until the motivation report appears.
What about Guede and his "this is a thought which is always been in my mind" – since he absolutely WAS there and DID know that Amanda and Raffaele were not present. Strange "logic" in these Italian courts most times.
Danielle, the "confession" – two different ones actually – are not even confessions to commission of any crime. They are at most confessions of non-reporting or of false reporting….except that we know Knox could not even read the text herself (note the underlining on the originals where someone seems to have "explained" it to her) and that the documents were both written by Anna Donnino in a separate room – without notes – on a word processor and with specific input from Giuliano Mignini. That we have from the "court record" – the sworn testimony of Anna Donnino.
Please be sure to mention this when you write your "short article". It is important.
This is a very straightforward case which has been distorted and twisted by the Amanda Knox PR machine. Here are some simple points: 1 Amanda Knox lied to police from day one, it is common sense that persistently lying to police will always be seen as a sign of guilt as highlighted by Judge Micheli. 2. Amanda Knox placed herself at the scene of Meredith's murder in 3 voluntary declarations which she herself demanded to make, 1 to police 1 to the magistrate Mignini and 1 a hand written account to Rita Ficarra. To quote Knox "I heard Meredith screaming" Knox had provided Diya Lumumba's name in a list of persons of interest to Ficcara before she was informed that Raffaele Sollecito was no longer supporting her version of events and had stated he had lied at Knox's request. 3. To this day Knox has no alibi and there is no evidence to suggest she was anywhere other than we she had admitted being, which is 7 Via Della Pergola while Meredith was being murdered. 4 There is a large blob of Knox's blood on the faucet in the small bathroom in Via Della Pergola, Knox testified that there was no blood before she left for Sollecito's earlier on on 01/11/07 thus dating her blood to the time of Meredith's murder. Knox's DNA is was located in Meredith's blood in Filomena's room ( where the burglary was staged) this was not a communal area. According to Luciano Garofano who is regarded as Italy's number one forensic detective the trace was a mix of Knox's and Meredith's blood. 5 The murder weapon rep 36 was recovered from Sollecito's appartment at 110 Corso Garibaldi, an address that Meredith had never attended. Knox DNA is identified on two points on the knife 36A & I, Meredith's DNA is located on the blade of the knife rep 36B. Meredith's DNA on the blade is confirmed by Stefanoni, Torricelli, Novelli, Garofano, Budowle, Johnson, Hampikian, Biondo, Gill, Balding and conceded by Carla Vecchiotti at the Hellmann appeal. The more pro Knox of these DNA specialists argue possible contamination, however contamination in Stefanoni's lab was ruled out in court and defence experts present at testing raised no objections. Contamination in transit is also impossible due to the fact 2 seperate search teams were deployed to Via Della Pergola and Corso Garibaldi. Cassazione has a lot of explaining to do to justify its failing Meredith Kercher
Thank you Jack. That pretty much says it all. Also, as I recently wrote RG's conviction was made on the ruling that he had two other (unnamed) accomplices. This was upheld by the SC and he was imprisoned. So either the previous SC ruling that convicted RG is wrong or the recent SC ruling that acquitted AK & RS is wrong. But they cannot have it both ways. That would be a double standard and that is in violation of the law.
So either RG gets a new trial and is released or the recent SC acquittal is overturned and the case against AK & RS is reopened.
Yes the farcical acquital of Knox and Sollecito causes problems for Italy. Not only does the supreme court of Cassazione now have to contradict its own motivation report they must also surely demand Italian police look for evidence of Guede's accomplices seeing as they do not believe the mountain of evidence against Knox and Sollecito is enough to convince them of their involvement.
Amelia1981Jones May 16, 2015 - 1:40 am
What would you know about the law? Rudy's lawyers have already come out and stated that he is not seeking another trial. If you knew the first thing about the law you would understand that the current SC ruling cannot be overruled, regardless of anything to do with Rudy's trial. Such a ruling would involve a total change to the legislation itself. Even 'if' the legislation were changed, (and it won't be!), the law applies the legislation that existed at the time of any given case. Therefore, the law that exists now would be applied to the Meredith Kercher case.
Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. They have been declared innocent by the highest court in Italy. Nothing you say or do will ever change that. You are not a doctor, and you have a far lower than average IQ. You think you can understand the complexities of the law by applying 'bits' of it. That is what gives you away as an uneducated moron.
Someone said Bruce Fischer posted? I am looking forward to debating him not restricted to 140
Fischer won't and can't debate, he never has been able to. He is an angry little man who rarely steps away from the safety of his blog for fear of being made to look like, er him.
To my esteemed colleague, thank you for exposing Lyn Duncan for all of who she is below. Clearly, an individual who has miserably lost at life. Very sad. What will she do when Amanda Knox Incorporated goes bankrupt next year?
Justice Seeker April 11, 2015 - 12:39 pm
He is on the page, but says it's a waste of time.lol
Most likely, he's here lurking as usual. I partially exposed him below and, of course, got no response. He probably won't raise his head now. But if he does please separate it from his shoulders. Thank you!
Rudy! Is that you with your knife? "…separate it from his shoulders"?? Well, you tried to with Meredith, didn't you, Rudy? But without proper training you couldn't do it "right" so you made a complete botch of it….
Thank you for demonstrating your true murderous colors, Monkey Joe!
Please look up the word "rhetoric" as in "rhetorical speaking or writing". This should greatly help your ESL studies.
Where I live, rhetoric like that could get you a year in prison. Maybe you had better take some WA State legal classes in between your own ESL studies.
Even your weak and pathetic threats are boring now. Try to think of something original for a change eh?
"Must justify! Must justify! Must justify self! Cannot admit error! Am being tested! Must be steadfast! Can't accept having been wrong! Can't accept having been wrong! Must be a flaw! Must be something wrong with the facts! Can't have been so wrong… mustn't have been so wrong! Must justify self! Must blame someone else! It cannot be my fault! Somebody tricked me! Must justify self!…."
Joe, is it true that you were once involved in a murder trial as well? Something about your mother and money?
Joe? Who is Joe? I went to school with a Joe Schmidt; and I used to know a Joe Hanson. Do those count?
1. Comments on forums are often hyperbolic, mean-spirited, inaccurate, duplicitous, and insulting.
2. Engaging in such forums is a voluntary act.
3. Such comments on forums are often referred to by folks who choose to stereotype those with whom they disagree, rather than attacking that disagreement.
Butler, you rank up there in the top ten dumbest Knoxophiles. Do you still claim Stefanoni, Torricelli, Novelli, Garofano, Budowle, Johnson and Hampikian are not scientists?
None are DNA — DNA — scientists.
(Your comment is of the character of what I describe in No. 1 above. Is this your response to what I actually said. Or are you just branching out?)
Butler I have sent you the credentials of all of the the afore mentioned including PhDs. Since when is a forensic biologist not a DNA scientist? You are discombobulated and frankly clueless.
It's all the same to you, isn't it? Your oversimplification would justify having a podiatrist performing eye surgery.
I might add, in answer to your original attack, that some on that list aren't even close to being scientists of any kind.
Feel free to provide your definition of a DNA scientist John. Luciano Garofano PhD is regarded as Italy's number one forensic detective and Dr Biondo was head of the DNA unit of the scientific police. Do you think they merely play with bunsen burners and make bicarb fountains all day you Simpleton?
Stefanoni's bosses as expert witnesses? I don't think so….
Torricelli (expert witness) was nothing to do with the police. You are clearly out of your depth.
JLS1950 April 11, 2015 - 10:25 pm
No, you are – like all you guilters. You simply cannot accept that you were ALWAYS WRONG.
manfromatlan April 11, 2015 - 3:16 pm
The Free Dictionary defines a scientist as "A person who is engaged in and has expert knowledge of a science, especially a biological or physical science." which includes all of the above named individuals. Even if you want to stick to the narrow definition of "one who conducts research" I think you will find they all have written papers on DNA submitted for peer review.
Those peer reviewed articles by DNA scientists not only drive the advancement of DNA science but also instruct DNA practitioners and others in how to properly conduct and improve their work. Had Steffanoni kept up to date in her field and put proper procedures into practice, her "findings" would not have been the source of derision.
You introduce specious arguments. There are suggestions as to "proper procedures" in those peer reviewed journals, not writ. Please advise what European standards were violated by Stefanoni?
I have no idea except to point out that the only — only — DNA scientists which scrutinized the work of the lab found too many flaws for it to be taken seriously.
You present a vague list of assertions by unnamed individuals who never could be bothered to be sworn in and testify before a court or be cross examined? OK.
In response to something I said? You must intend this to be addressed to someone else.
Insofar as I know, non-Italian experts witnesses were not well-received by the court.
Prove that. What "non-Italian expert witnesses" attempted to be heard by the court? Yet Bruce Fischer's forum boasted how they fed their reports to the defense. They just couldn't be bothered to be cross-examined is all. Kassin, Hampikian, and now Gill, have all had their reputations sunk by this case.
And now you're relying on specious arguments in requesting a full docket of what standards violated by Stefanoni. The reason being is that in many ways this likely will never be fully known (or even if fully responsible for faulty) as all that has to occur is that suspicion is cast on the evidence coming from the lab. The burden of proof is that a verdict of guilt be shown beyond a reasonable doubt. As well keep in mind it is Knox/Sollecito on trial, not the crime lab.
The conflict though arises when the same lab and/or prosecution HAS already produced spurious DNA results, most notably with Raffaele's kitchen knife which then casts a pale of doubt over veracity or raises certain questions as to motivation behind such evidence coming from.
This is enough in an of itself as thus would be thrown out in most courts for failing to meet evidentiary standards as would likely the case, or never would have been allowed to come to trial to begin with. But then the retort always comes, well if this were true, then how can Rudy's DNA evidence been trusted? -I'd say it can be as meeting a much higher standard but more as motivations don't seem to be there in producing something that'll stick at all costs, but in truth, Rudy, were this many countries, actually could build a case or appeal upon himself; that however clear his guilt may be, the crime scene and evidence was improperly handled and possibly or even likely manipulated. Again, that would be an uphill burden for him, but doesn't mean his questioning or logic upon appeal wouldn't have merit. People were furious regarding the result of the OJ trial as it was fairly clear he murdered his ex-wife, however the correct verdict was rendered as trials must also be fair and the prosecutions/witnesses for reputations be largely beyond the pale or given in "good faith" as otherwise thus become unreliable…and when the Fuhrman tapes came to light, this was called into question.
Whether malfeasance on the part of the authorities at that time ventured into "framing an innocent man" territory can indeed itself be questioned, yet in this case I think this is what eventually broke the case: in totality of what was being presented by the prosecution, there was far too much assumption, contradiction, as well then rejection only complicated when closer examination and defense evidence/logic pointed to both Knox and Sollecito's innocence.
Beyond this though, as to your questioning regarding which standards were violated, I think Dr. Peter Gill(on of inventors of DNA as a forensics tool) outlined fairly well in his report upon, which was commissioned by the EU and for which this interview regarding the Knox case is fairly damming: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/crime/renowned-uk-dna-pioneer-peter-gill-adds-voice-to-amanda-knox-case/article/397213
Although not touched upon in this bit, the "loci" theory regarding the transference/contamination nature of the bra clasp is quite "loco" first as multiple profiles were pulled from, but also as on such an item it is almost inherent that quantities would be low unless someone bleeding from their fingers when removing. In other words it basically was "touch" level DNA of which Gill, but also many other experts, have made the case that just because one pulls even a full DNA profile(as is to be expected btw FOR ANY EVIDENCE put forth), this is NOT inherently indicative of guilt, just that the lab has been able to produce a profile, of which technology today vs. the 90s becoming problematic and even experimental when labs now at below "nano"-scale, meanwhile evidence still collected largely in the macro world…basically you're almost required to have "clean room" standards of the type required in manufacturing pharmaceuticals, high tech semiconductors, etc. yet contrast this with what are typically complete shambles and absolute messes of crime scenes. So for example, because DNA can be pulled out of dust in air today, evidence needs collection immediately but also techniques perhaps then required showing not only loci matches, but also total quantities(and relative to others) on items as well their nature or type(ex: not just blood, hair, skin, saliva, etc., but also the particulate types coming from (shed cells, cells intact in bodily matrix/tissue structure(ex: pieces of skin vs. dust, living or dead when transferred, etc.), many of which are still far beyond the scope of what labs can test for. It's not a unique problem though as these conflicts arise with every new forensics technique; ex: with fingerprints, police had to learn to use gloves, dust properly, etc. once established, but before then it had to be proven as valid method in matching loci, rarity of, completeness of print, many things which are still being argued over today.
John is just a Simpleton Naseer. Another one who makes statements exposing his lack of intelligence and ignorance and then just digs himself in to a deeper hole. Just one more clueless Knox sycophant to add to the collection.
The purpose of a trial is to prove guilt. A defense might or might not attempt to prove innocence, but that is not needed in the absence of proof of guilt, as is the judgment of this cassation court.
I eagerly await Cassazione's reasoning report explaining just how they failed Meredith. There will be shock waves reverberating from this farcical decision which will cause problems for the Italian judicial system. There are already rumblings of discontent with in Italian legal circles. Guede was convicted of participating in Meredith's murder with othdrs. How is Cassazione going to explain the absence of biological material of the "others" when they clearly do not believe the biological evidence against Knox and Raf is enough to convict? Knox and Raf's multitude of lies and changing stories would be enough to convict in most countries. Cassazione has made a mockery of the Italian judicial system.
Yes, indeed. This is going to explode when it hits the fan. There are only 77 days to go. KABOOM! 😀
"only 77 days"??? Weren't you saying that back on 7 January?
The due date for the publication of the motivations report is on June 27th. Try to keep up!
Keeping up with you is easy: you keep coming back to the same place all the time!
77 days before the official investigations begin.
The official investigations are OVER. Except the ECHR consideration of the "calunnia conviction" for something written by Anna Donnino.
The ECHR does not overturn member states' verdicts. But the president of the Italian Supreme Court can order investigations and reopen cases. It has happened before in the past. It will be done this time as well.
JLS1950 April 12, 2015 - 12:29 am
Monkey-Joe, you are very boring… and irrelevant. The only ones who will be investigated now will be perhaps Mignini and Napoleoni's Murder Squad – the latter for spray-painting death threats.
It's been fun seeing all your "predictions" smashed in front of your eyes.
I fervently hope that "shock waves" will "cause problems for the Italian justice system." I also agree with you that the forensic evidence was and is suspect. All convictions, largely based on the work of the Polizia Scientifica, should be reviewed. My lack of regard for the Italian justice system is shared by 84 per cent of Italians who stated to Euromedia pollsters in 2009, they can not "fully trust" their justice system.
One thing I agree with you on is the scientific police actually present at 7 Via Della Pergola did a less than perfect job. However this only worked in Knox's favour & ultimately allowed her to get away with murder. The case should have and could have been water tight. But as Crini correctly stated even if all of the DNA evidence was negated there was still enough due to Knox and Sollecito's many lies, lack of alibi and eye witness testimony to secure a conviction. I will also remind you re your previous comment that Italians are right not to trust their judicial system following the Berlusconi debacle followed by the unjust acquital of Knox and Sollecito.
They survey was taken in 2009.
You are clearly not capabale of seeing the wood for the trees John. The date is irrelevant the failings of the Italian judicial system go way beyong Berlusconi and Knox.
I don't see how one can separate the police from the judiciary. The police work for and take orders from a member of the judiciary during investigations.
And that just exposes your ignorance further John Boy.
Perhaps you can explain what you mean. Do you disagree with what I said? If so, take the opportunity to explain why what I said is wrong — if you can.
See above post Johnboy
Is it your contention that Mignini did not manage the police investigation? Or are you saying Mignini is not a member of the judiciary? What branch of government is he a part of? Legislative? Executive?
Mignini was a prosecutor. There is a dicference between judges/ judiciary and investigative police even a tulip like you should be able to gradp John.
In Italy, as in nearly all inquisitorial law systems, the Public Minister is a type of "Judge" and is ABSOLUTELY in charge of the entire police investigation.
And in the case of the murder investigation Mignini acted as a prosecutor and not a judge. I agree with you and the many disgruntled Italians on the point that their judicial system is a failure and that is the reason Knox and Sollecito are free.
Mignini is in some sense a judge (e.g. he can issue warrants as I understand – that was part of the abuse he was charged for in the Narducci case) and he was most definitely in control of the investigation from day one. It was he and he alone who ordered that the presumptive semen stain on the pillow (directly beneath Meredith's genitals) not be tested. It was he who forbade any intensive investigation of the broken window which might otherwise have proved the direction of the glass breakage and other factors. It was Mignini who ordered in 12 Mafioso-breaking interrogators from Rome, and it was Mignini who directed Anna Donnino in the specific wording of the "Spontaneous Declarations" that Knox was coerced into signing. Mignini was completely "in charge" from start to finish.
The French system is very similar – as has been depicted in various adaptations of Georges Simenon's Maigret including both the Michael Gambon and Bruno Cremer series. The Bruno Cremer adaptation of The Lady's Companion (series 9) is a particularly good example of the degree to which a judge or "Public Minister" can misdirect a police investigation based on personal prejudice or bias.
I only read a little of this drivel as you are just going over old ground. We all know Mignini was a magistrate. But John's ridiculous obfuscation has been well & truly debunked. Re the stain you may wish to check your sources. Sollecito himself stated his defence didn't request testing of the stain (which FOA goon Frank Sfarzo says is vaseline) . You will find this referenced on page 185 of his book Honor Bound.
Study up the differences between Common Law / Adversarial systems and Civil Law / Inquisitorial systems, and then count yourself supremely blessed if you live under the former. And I mean really STUDY.
Where in this response have you addressed Sollecito admitting he feared the stain would be attributed to him?
Examined in context, his statement communicates his distrust of the police.
And yet fails to refute my point demolishing his prior claim.